Report: Israel attacks flotilla, 10 die

[Tribesman]

Tribesman,

just answer the question:

Have I ever stated that?...... No.

How does that relate to what you wrote? ...It doesn't

So what is the purpose of your question?.... You are just trying to dodge the issue ain't you.

Don't take it so hard just because you screwed up initially with your claim.

[Bilge_Rat]

Have I ever stated that?...... No.



so you were wrong and I was right.

just stay out of my face in the future if you have nothing constructive to add.

[CaptainHaplo]

:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

You said "constructive to add" in a sentence about Tribesman!

:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

[tomfon]

The result you criticise, is a result they make on basis of their numerical findings. The found a correlation between strength of faith, and record of criminal/violent behavior, saying the stronger the christian faith of the subject is, the more peaceful it showed to be, whith the muslim juvenile showing the more crimianl/aggressive behavior the stronger the role Muslim religion played in his life. they also said that this is because of the typical macho-culture Muslim male juveniles grow up with and that islamic culture educate them in: that that creates a male role model that educates them to behave like that. These differences in behavior they xclaim to be typical for muslim male juveniles, I see cionfirmed almost every ime I walk in town. Groups of men of Muslim foreign origin definetly behave different than similiar groups of asian, western europeans or Africans - they are much more "macho" indeed. I go as far as saying that "machismo" is one of the most typical characteristics of men from various ME countries, even more so with the young ones.

Earlier studies have found this: that the offsprings of the original migrants coming to germany, the now third generation, are much more religious and conservative than even their grandparents ever where. Somehow, this integration thing goes 180° at the wrong direction.

I then linked this to what I repeatedly have said in the past: that a Christian for wanting to behave violent and aggressive, he must explicitly violate the teachings of Jesus (Christ-->Christian, I do not talk of the church and it's politics), where for a Muslim behaving vilent towards others (women, infidels), he must explicitly follow the teachings of Muhammad (Quran). Jesus and muhammad's teachings are lightyears apart, one could almost say the one is the anti-thesis to the other. I can only lauch out loud when "tolerant" Christians and priests think they must try to ennoble themselves when wanting to compare Muhammad and Jesus and claim that they were preaching the same things. They were not. One could as well claim that Stalin compares to Ghandi.

Hello Skybird. I tried to find the publication of the study you mentioned the other day but to no avail. I searched through the pages of the English edition of Der Spiegel but i couldn't find it. Anyway.

I believe that the study involves a certain degree of exaggeration. Even if we accept that all Muslims obey to this male-role-model then it shouldn't necessarily mean that this behaviour corresponds to some kind of aggressiveness. I mean, how do you measure aggressiveness? Do these people have criminal records or is there any proof of them participating in acts of violence? If yes, then the correlation between degree of faith and aggressive male behaviour may be true. Still, this ought to be true for a large number of Muslims so that the claims of the survey be verifiable. In my opinion, until this is proved we can't say much. Also, we can't conclude that they are aggressive simply because we don't like the view when we look at their faces... Sometimes, the problem with such surveys is that instead of liberating people from xenophobic stereotypes they just expand these stereotypes. I'm a little bit sceptical about this study and/or similar ones because, in the end, the only thing they might prove is that we don't know much about Muslims. On the other hand, they might as well be a clue that the differences between West and East or the differences between the Western type of man and the Eastern type of man are very difficult to be bridged. After all, maybe they shouldn't. I sense that the problem doesn't lie here. I'm only afraid that both worlds can't cope with these differences: the West tries tries to defend its civilization against the "barbaric" nations while the "barbaric" nations struggle to find an identity and a place in this world often through fundamentalism - God forbid.

[DarkFish]

:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

You said "constructive to add" in a sentence about Tribesman!

:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:lo l :DL

May I recommend the ignore list? Will make it a little easier to get him to "stay out of your face".

[Skybird]

I believe that the study involves a certain degree of exaggeration.
How is that - if you even do not know it, as you just admitted? ;)

The authors explcitly said that the more relgious Muslim juveniles are, the easier they use their fists and get engaged in violent crimes, while the more believing christian juveniles are, the less likely it is they use their fists or get engaged with violent crime. they said that they conclude this very carefully, and even if they substract factors like social status and integration status their data still shows this trend very clearly.

The study meanwhile has been mentione din TV news as well. It has also become known meanwhile that it is known to political officials since half a year - and that they tried hard to hide it from the public completely, locking it away.

However. Google shows many links to German newspapers covering it.

http://www.google.de/search?as_q=studie+muslimische+jugend+Gewalt&hl=de&num=10&btnG=Google-Suche&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&cr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

The full german version of the study's text meanwhile is available online, too:
http://www.kfn.de/versions/kfn/assets/fob109.pdf

The homepage of the Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut Niedersachsen (Criminological Research Institute Lower-Saxony). they work in close cooperation with the German police.
http://www.kfn.de/home.htm

the chief of the project also is no nobody in Germany, and often is on TV for numeric background analysis and information about crime statistics.

They are very hesitent to formulate the clear conclusions they now step forward this, but their data, they say, leaves them no other choice, due to it's unquestionable statistic validity and reliability.

And honstely said, to me the findings are no suzrprise. To many policemen, detectives and schoolteachers they are no surprise as well. finally, this is not the first study showing such politically incorrect results. Several studies in germany over the past years showed comparable results, by trend. Regarding yourth crime as well as violent behaviour, no other social group in germany (including native germans) give the police as much worries, as muslim male migrants.

The study now showed something else, too - that migrants not submitting to any religious belief and considering themselves as atheists or areligious, are showing the smallest, almost no problem at all to assimilate in new cultural and social settings (even lesser problems than Christian immigrants), and were the best integrated group of all migration groups. It seems that the less religion is involved, the fewer walls individuals build around them to stay separate from those outside of their religion.

So says the same study.

[Tribesman]

so you were wrong and I was right.


You really do have reading and comprehension problems don't you.
Attacking something I never claimed in the first place doesn't miraculously make your mistakes correct.
You were asked top review what you had written and my response as you appeared to have completely lost track of yourself.
Instead you came up with unrelated rubbish which indicates you are the one with nothing constructive to add.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Breaking a blockade is breaking a blockade. By your logic a force breaking a blockade could be demanded to be allowed success if only it does not shoot at those opposing forces enforcing the blockade. That is absurd. It does not matter whether the blockade runner is armed and doe snot use its weapons, or has no weapons. The frigate running a blockade is the same like a trader running a blockade.

Without getting into whether it should be "allowed success", I see that you have silenced yourself on the point of it being "military aggression".

Can't comment, don't know the details of that incident.

At risk of oversimplifying, in a nutshell. The Soviet interpretation of the term "innocent passage" is that it applies only to merchants, and they have to follow the navigational regime of the nation who owns the territorial waters (makes sense to me). The American interpretation allows for warships & merchantmen, and they can be allowed to do almost anything short of opening fire (technically, the American position does not allow surveillance, but let's get real, in these days of electronic steered, radome-covered devices how can you easily tell, and even a active radar can easily be covered in the name of "navigational safety" while conveniently recording down intelligence).

Anyway, the Americans decided to assert their position in their "Freedom of Navigation" program (which in this case is more a "Freedom to be an *sshole" program IMO) and sent Yorktown and Caron to loiter in Soviet Black Sea waters. The Soviets eventually sent two frigates to bump (literally) them away. The Americans bawled - they argue that even if there was a violation it should be handled in court...

So, if we accept that a running a blockade is military aggression, by extension so would this little violation (especially since Yorktown and Caron are after all, very modern large warships) of national waters - thus they may be legitimately sunk. It is quite clear regardless of the legal specifics, if they were sunk, it would have been a incident instigated by America. Yet I just don't see NATO not standing by America if this scenario did come to pass...

See above. Abloackade is a blockade. It has a purpose, that is to prevent, limit or control the flow of goods to an enemy one is at war at. Any effort trying to counter that prevention or control of goods transports, is breaking the blockade. So is smuggling.

The blockade by Israel is legal, was supoported actively by Egypt, and tolerated by many araba states.

The legality is disputable, I think Egypt is bailing ship now they fully understand what this blockade means, and tolerance is no endorsement.

Now will you finally please spend some time on trying to understand what purpose a blockade has and what it tries to acchieve. It's becoming a bit boring that time and again I must point out and explain the very obvious. the Israeli blockade to Gaza is not even a total one, but one that is about inspections and just filtering out certain items that can be of military use for Hamas.

And there you go - it was supposed to let humanitarian items through, and we have commandos.

Civilians voluntarily lining up with combatants - become combatants themselves that way, because they have chosen one combatant side to line up with. Civilians in Israel that get terroised by randomly aimed missiles do not do that, nor does the Israeli military confuse the situation by hiding in civilian crowds like Hamas and Hezbollah does.

That's the distinction you picked, hmm? What the Israeli military does is a non sequitur in this case - if Turkey tried to disguise its warship as merchantmen there might be something to it...

As for civilians, for one thing, it is very highly disputable as to whether a civilian becomes a combatant just for running a blockade. I guess the Lusitania just never knew its death was perfectly legitimate and it was actually a military aggressor on the mere grounds it was running a German sub blockade.

In another point, we get into a bunch of horny questions over how close the alignment has to be b/f it is valid to shoot them. After all, the average Israeli citizen is a conscript and reservist (even the women though they IIRC have shorter programs), and in any case they all pay taxes contributing to a Apache firing into the Gaza.

In a third point, if some Israeli civilian runs across the street to help, for example, some Israeli wounded soldier or to bring him some food, will you really feel nothing as some Hamas fella guns him down (knowing he's a civvie) on grounds that he just "voluntarily lined up" with the IDF, that he knew what was coming ... etc?

The activists on those ships, on the other hand, voluntarily joined blockade runners and knew what they were doing and said that that was what they wanted and what they were doing. they have chosen sides in a conflict they knew they were heading into. That's what made them no neutral civilians but blockde runners. And since running through a blockade is an act of conflict in itself, they were combatants even if they were just sitting on the deck.

Choosing sides, in most people's books, does not equate to becoming combatants...

No. you just mess up the meaning of war and think there is a way war could be fought in a civilised way, like a sports event. It isn'T. It's neither fair nor just. It's only a war either needed, or a war not needed. The first you fight, the second you better stay away from.

That may be your position. The average guy in the West thinks differently however, or they'll be total hypocrites as they cry out against terrorists. And Israel is not willing to pay the political price to use your definition.

And if you believe there is no civility in war, again, there is nothing left to condemn a terrorist with.

[Castout]

And if you believe there is no civility in war, again, there is nothing left to condemn a terrorist with.


:yeah::yeah::yeah:

One of the brightest quote I ever read on Subsim! Coming from Kazuaki Shimazaki it's no wonder I must say but I just love that quote. Mind if I quote it some time in other forum?

On the matter to elicit some anger [again] from some people let me reiterate this I still love Israel despite this! :D. Now whoever you are if you get angry by this I've made my case. Now you go piss yourself would you Sir.

[Skybird]

Without getting into whether it should be "allowed success", I see that you have silenced yourself on the point of it being "military aggression".
Split hairs if you want, I again point to two media sources I already referred to earlier, where the authors said it in right these words that international law would rate the breaking of a blockade as a military agressive act, an act of military aggression. And I agree with that and I say it makes no reasonable sense to argue different. It simply ignores the definition of "blockade" and "braking a blockade".

At risk of oversimplifying, in a nutshell. The Soviet interpretation of the term "innocent passage" is that it applies only to merchants, and they have to follow the navigational regime of the nation who owns the territorial waters (makes sense to me). The American interpretation allows for warships & merchantmen, and they can be allowed to do almost anything short of opening fire (technically, the American position does not allow surveillance, but let's get real, in these days of electronic steered, radome-covered devices how can you easily tell, and even a active radar can easily be covered in the name of "navigational safety" while conveniently recording down intelligence).

And what has this to do with declaring a blockade? A Sea blockade is an act that is formally regulated and accepted by international laws. you have to announce where it is, from when to when it lasts, the precise area, and you have to be at war with the side you are hitting with the blockade. Shortly summarised. There are total blockades, and blockades that filter, inspect and limit the flow of goods. Gaza is the latter. And where there is a blockade announced under the above conditions, it is a legal thing to enforce that blockade. If a ship is allowed to ignore it, then it would not be a blockade.

But all this is academic. For Israel it is a thing of vital, existential importance to try to interrupt military deliveries to it'S enemies who are at war with it.


Anyway, the Americans decided to assert their position in their "Freedom of Navigation" program (which in this case is more a "Freedom to be an *sshole" program IMO) and sent Yorktown and Caron to loiter in Soviet Black Sea waters. The Soviets eventually sent two frigates to bump (literally) them away. The Americans bawled - they argue that even if there was a violation it should be handled in court...
USSR and USA were not at war. So, the Russians could not have declared a formal blockade under the above terms. So while I learn what the Yorktown incident was - thanks for the explanation, btw. - it nevertheless has nothing to do with the situation at Gaza, therefore, and I wonder why you even need to bring it up.


So, if we accept that a running a blockade is military aggression, by extension so would this little violation (especially since Yorktown and Caron are after all, very modern large warships) of national waters - thus they may be legitimately sunk. It is quite clear regardless of the legal specifics, if they were sunk, it would have been a incident instigated by America. Yet I just don't see NATO not standing by America if this scenario did come to pass...

Yes, but you just said it yourself: the Yorktown thing was about "national waters" - not formally announced sea blockades against a war party.


And there you go - it was supposed to let humanitarian items through, and we have commandos.
Purpose of this blockade is to inspect that it is humanitarian items indeed. they need to interdict naval smuggling, like they have smuggling at the Egyptian border in those many tunnels the dig over there (and which they occasionally bomb when they know their locations).


That's the distinction you picked, hmm? What the Israeli military does is a non sequitur in this case - if Turkey tried to disguise its warship as merchantmen there might be something to it...

I wonder what is so difficult in understanding that once you have choosen a side that fights, and line up with it, you are no longer a neutral party yourself, but are attached to that side even if you do not pick up a weapon yourself. You actively contribute your share to that side'S militarily relevant success. The disguising of warships as merchantmen - I wonder again why now this you bring up. It does have no importance for the simple fact I just described: if you choose a side, you are not to be considered neutral anymore. Neutral you are if you refuse to be linked to any side, and do not help any side to gain it's objectives. In order to be considered a non-combatant, it is inevitably a precondition that you refuse to support the fighting of any side, and refuse to dirctly or indirectly assist the ambitions the engaged sides are fighting for. Since you can contribute to the acchieving of military or terrorist goal without needing to fire a weapon yourself (by just boarding a blockade runner, for example, in a bid that your presence makes it untouchable), by that passive contribution to that fighting'S goal you neverthelss "fight" - just that you do not do it with a weapon. the controller in an AWAYCS, the radio operatore in a C3I network also does not fire a weapon, but he sure as hell is a combatant, and a valid military target - due to hwat he does (additionally to the fact that he wears a uniform). If you give one side an advantage by manning one of it'S boats in order to make it "untouchable" by your presence, you already are not a neutral anymore, and since breaking a blockade is an aggressive act, that makes the former neutral person now a non-neutral part of it. Or a combatant, in other words.



As for civilians, for one thing, it is very highly disputable as to whether a civilian becomes a combatant just for running a blockade. I guess the Lusitania just never knew its death was perfectly legitimate and it was actually a military aggressor on the mere grounds it was running a German sub blockade.

Violating a blockade and not knowing it, and knowingly trying to break a blockade, are two different things, and i would recommend different procedures for the side enforcing the blockade. Which does not mean that the unknowing violator should not be stopped and controlled. the blockade is in place, whether the violator knows it or not. Part of the blockade is that you do not just trust in something or just beleive anything or just make assumptions - but that you control what's going in and out.

In another point, we get into a bunch of horny questions over how close the alignment has to be b/f it is valid to shoot them. After all, the average Israeli citizen is a conscript and reservist (even the women though they IIRC have shorter programs), and in any case they all pay taxes contributing to a Apache firing into the Gaza.
Because they are the intended targets to be killed by Hamas. Israelis are not neutral in this, they cannot be, because they are as a nationality, ethnicity, social group, nationl community, the intended target of Hamas that they favour over any other. Hamas does not fight for limited goals and does not only fire against military installations. It tries to kill and destroy everyone and everything Israeli, because the ultimate destruction of Israel itself and the killing of chasing away of it's inhabitants are its goal.

Now tell me in how far Israel has declared war against Henning Mankel's Sweden, or against the Germany the half a dozen communist members of parliament and SED sympathesizers were coming from...? It's even better: german TV investigation report some days ago confronted them with new information that there were even rightwing extremists onboard these ships. These useful left idiots claimed to trust in the humanitarian ambition of the mission - but fell silent before the camera when being confronted with evidence that European rightwing radicals had lined up with the fleet - and that the turkish IHH (linked to fundamentalist fanatic organisations itself, and to the so-called Grey Wolves) and the heads of the AKP knew it.

http://www.swr.de/report/-/id=233454/did=6481392/pv=video/nid=233454/qsb6iy/index.html

German commies and SED-sympathisers, rightwing extremists and Turkish Islamists in one boat - what a great mixture, glued together by their common sentiment of anti-semitism! FAN-TAS-TIC !:yeah:


In a third point, if some Israeli civilian runs across the street to help, for example, some Israeli wounded soldier or to bring him some food, will you really feel nothing as some Hamas fella guns him down (knowing he's a civvie) on grounds that he just "voluntarily lined up" with the IDF, that he knew what was coming ... etc?

Do you know what the neutrality of the Red Cross in war bases on? That it has no associations with any of the fighting sides, and treats wounded from both, no matter their side. If such a neutrality would demand the intended target of Hamas terrorism - the civilian Israeli i this case - to sit still while being fired upon, then I think this is hardly soemthing one could seriously exoect them to do. But right this is what the international community tells Israel time and again to do whenever it gets hit by rockets - to do nothing and suffer in quiteness. probably a demand of piety to not kill the well-meant illusions about the peace that is there to come (if only those damn Jews would accept to not defend themselves).

Choosing sides, in most people's books, does not equate to becoming combatants...
it depends on active versus passive engagement. I refuse to be neutral in this conflict, I do not hide that I sympathise with the Israelis here. that is my opinion, but that does not make me a combatant. A combatant I become the moment I go over there and join an Israeli military unit - or board a ship that is set to break a blockde announced by Hamas (what Hamas legally cannot do, but you just take the picture). so, being combatant or not is linked to being actively engaged or not on the scene of action. If you collect money for Israel or Hamas in europe, that does not make you a combatant, but you are no neutral anymore, and depending on your authority and importance for the one or the other side's inner network, eventually you nevertheless can be a valid target to be eliminated. Not becausue you collected money in the street, but maybe because you are a big number in whitewashing money for Hamas, or organising weapon deals.


That may be your position. The average guy in the West thinks differently however, or they'll be total hypocrites as they cry out against terrorists. And Israel is not willing to pay the political price to use your definition.
That's why they failed in gaza and lebanon, and got a bloody nose especially in lebanon. the unwillingness to fight the war as is needed to fight it - and that means to kill the enemy at all costs, everyhwere - has led to the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. It refuses to recognise that Pakistan is no ally but an enemy trying to protect the Taliban for several imoportant reasons. While writing this, they still try to extinguish the fires on those 140 vehicles in that NATO convoy - Not at the Afghan border, but in the heart of Pakistan, right outside of Islamabadh... there are so many military ambitions that failed because of self-restraint based on this idea that war and civilised order to be brought into conformity. The UN's military missions also failed for the vast majority of them, for this reason. Having good intentions - is just not enough.

My ideas about war may not be nice, but they express in the end nothing but recognition of the bitter reality. The more humane a war appears to be, the more liekly war becomes, the more acceptable it appears, the more often all sides engaged get surprised by how nasty it actually becomes. The reality is that war is never just (it's always also innocents suffering), never civilised, and is never an order that could be described by categories from peacetime, but that it is the explicit absence of such order - it's the incarnation of chaos and destruction. War is never just, but always unfair, that is part of its nature and definition. I only differ between wars of need/necessity, and wars of choice and desire. I strongly recommend to stay away from the latter at all costs.

Very likely that the wars "I would fight" would be much more dirty and brutal than the wars you have on mind. But I promise you I would have a lot of a wars less than we have in the present due to our civilised self-restraints and confused ideas about "just wars". I am not about being brutal as a self-quality. I am about unwavering, focussed, uncompromised determination to destroy the enemy as fast and as complete as possible. what is done because it is needed to acchieve that, must be done. What gets done although it is not needed for achieving that goal, must not be done.

either you decide to fight a war, then make sure you can stay with your motives for accepting that decision: be sure, damn sure, of your reasons. Or you decide not to fight a war. just this madness of having just a bit of war, but not too much, and have a little bit of peace in it as well, and a little hope, and a little human quality, and a bit of this and a bit of that, and never too much blood - this idiotic back-and-forth that espeically amongst politicians is so very popular - does not help to limit wars and make them less harmful, but it prolongs them and makes them affecting more people in the long run, and increases the suffering of those affected.


And if you believe there is no civility in war, again, there is nothing left to condemn a terrorist with.

The civility lies in the standards by which somebody decides whether or not to go to war. In other words: the main part of civility is BEFORE the war is declared or not declared. Also, in war, the military and the terrorist have different target priorities. And here again lies a massive difference between both. the more the military degenerates to the "target acceptance levels" of a terrorist - intentionally targetting the civilian poulation - , the more it goes in loss of any claims for being more civilised than the terrorist, here you would be right. I think of some of the war crimes of the Russians in Chechnya, where great atrocities had been committed, intentionally targetting the civil population that could not escape the presence of russia's enemies, or did not actively support them. But that does not compare to the general procedures and ways the British or Amerikans have established in Iraq or Afghanistan.

If the civilian population does not assist my enemy's fighting force (by giving food, joining forces by night, tracking radio comms, intel activity, sabotage or voluntarily giving enemy fighters a hiding), there is no need for me to intentionally target and kill these civilians, for they have no military relevance for me and thus I do not see a valid military target in them.

However, if there is this bunker with weapon storages under their village's school, or a SAM site on the roof of their hospital, or that important bridge behind the market place that allows the enemy faster supply, then I will aim at these three objects and destroy them. That is not intentionally targetting civilians, but targetting a target of military relevance that is considered to be high enough so that the presence of civiliance will not hinder me to go after these targets nevertheless. If possible without risk to mission success or increased security risks to my own troops, I can delay the action until the number of civilians in the target vicinity has reduced. but priority has the destruction of the military target. civilian casualties in this scenario are called collateral damage. they are not wanted, but are accpeted in the meaning that they cannot be avoided.

If, however, I do not limit my targetting to targets of military relevance, but intend genocide, or intentionally target the civilians themselves and in the first, making not military targets but civilian population the delcared target of my killing action, then this is what qualifies as terrorism.

[Schroeder]

Purpose of this blockade is to control that it is humanitarian items indeed.

Sorry to be a smart ass again but since I've seen you writing this now a couple of times in this thread I thought I might clarify this.
I believe this is again one of those "false friends".
I guess you wanted to translate the German "kontrollieren" (im Sinne von Überprüfen). The English control however means "steuern, lenken" and yes, also "kontrollieren" but only in a sense of having something under control.
"Kontrollieren" in the sense of "Überprüfen" would be "to check, to examine, to inspect" etc.

But apart from that I agree with you.;)

[Skybird]

Control vs. inspection : thanks for clearing that, I indeed was not fully aware of that difference. :up:

I now have corrected it in the above post of mine (if I haven't overseen one case)

[CaptainHaplo]

The civility lies in the standards by which somebody decides whether or not to go to war.

Well said! :yeah:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Split hairs if you want, I again point to two media sources I already referred to earlier, where the authors said it in right these words that international law would rate the breaking of a blockade as a military agressive act, an act of military aggression. And I agree with that and I say it makes no reasonable sense to argue different. It simply ignores the definition of "blockade" and "braking a blockade".

I've yet to re-locate your other author to be honest, but your man Clemens von Wergin asserts (w/o any substantiation either by referencing, logic or precedence BTW) that the breaking of a blockade is a militarily aggressive act, but only tries to imply that running a blockade is equivalent to breaking it, which is as dubious an assertion as equating an "evasion" to an "attack", and leads to cans of worms in the history of blockade.

And what has this to do with declaring a blockade? A Sea blockade is an act that is formally regulated and accepted by international laws.So are territorial waters.

you have to announce where it is,So it has a defined location - no different here.

from when to when it lasts,[/;quote]

It has a duration - no different here - the duration of territorial waters would be the lifetime of the country.

[quote]the precise area,See location.

and you have to be at war with the side you are hitting with the blockade.A difference but not exactly a plus point, since it is not even clear a nation can actually be in war in a conventional sense with Hamas.

And where there is a blockade announced under the above conditions, it is a legal thing to enforce that blockade. If a ship is allowed to ignore it, then it would not be a blockade.Yet the blockade in itself is defensibly illegal. It is not "legal" to enforce an illegal thing.

But all this is academic. For Israel it is a thing of vital, existential importance to try to interrupt military deliveries to it'S enemies who are at war with it.Bags of cement, old medication, food are "military deliveries?"

USSR and USA were not at war. So, the Russians could not have declared a formal blockade under the above terms. So while I learn what the Yorktown incident was - thanks for the explanation, btw. - it nevertheless has nothing to do with the situation at Gaza, therefore, and I wonder why you even need to bring it up.

Yes, but you just said it yourself: the Yorktown thing was about "national waters" - not formally announced sea blockades against a war party.IIRC, in this part we were discussing the responsibility of NATO towards military aggression by one of its own members. Surely, whether the whole national waters business is analogous to blockade (and above I point out the similarities), it would be clear in the scenario the Americans were the aggressors, yet as I said I just don't see NATO abandoning America. Thus, even if you are right that running a blockade with civilian ships (which are not even chartered by the government) is "military aggression", it seems dubious to say NATO is thus justified to break with Turkey.

If you give one side an advantage by manning one of it'S boats in order to make it "untouchable" by your presence, you already are not a neutral anymore, and since breaking a blockade is an aggressive act, that makes the former neutral person now a non-neutral part of it. Or a combatant, in other words.As previously mentioned, the assertion that running a blockade is a "aggressive" act is enormously dubious, sufficiently so that at least one of your own authors apparently shies from stating it. In any case, I can agree that you are non-neutral once you help a side, but it doesn't mean that you are combatant - lest all Israelis turn into combatants from being part of the taxpaying population that helps arms the IDF.

Violating a blockade and not knowing it, and knowingly trying to break a blockade, are two different things, and i would recommend different procedures for the side enforcing the blockade. Which does not mean that the unknowing violator should not be stopped and controlled. the blockade is in place, whether the violator knows it or not. Part of the blockade is that you do not just trust in something or just beleive anything or just make assumptions - but that you control what's going in and out.Do you wish to imply that Lusitania had no idea that Britain and Germany were in something of a war, or that they were completely in the dark that the Germans are instituting a blockade against Britain?

German commies and SED-sympathisers, rightwing extremists and Turkish Islamists in one boat - what a great mixture, glued together by their common sentiment of anti-semitism! FAN-TAS-TIC !So they may not be the greatest human specimens. Law, however, is intended to avoid such judgments.

(I think I've mentioned in my first post in thread that this is a setup for Israel, so I make no defense on the moralities of the boaters involved. Nevertheless, they followed the rules in this case of the civilized nations, so the law must protect them and condemn Israel.

I think of the whole incident as broadly equivalent of a bunch of thugs confronting a bunch of police, and ending up with the police shooting them up. The thugs might have been *sses and they may have been provocative, but they followed the laws, and so the police were wrong in shooting them).

Do you know what the neutrality of the Red Cross in war bases on? That it has no associations with any of the fighting sides, and treats wounded from both, no matter their side. If such a neutrality would demand the intended target of Hamas terrorism - the civilian Israeli i this case - to sit still while being fired upon, then I think this is hardly soemthing one could seriously exoect them to do. But right this is what the international community tells Israel time and again to do whenever it gets hit by rockets - to do nothing and suffer in quiteness. probably a demand of piety to not kill the well-meant illusions about the peace that is there to come (if only those damn Jews would accept to not defend themselves).Should I take this long diatribe to mean yes you would feel nothing if Hamas shot the Israeli?

That's why they failed in gaza and lebanon, and got a bloody nose especially in lebanon. the unwillingness to fight the war as is needed to fight it - and that means to kill the enemy at all costs, everyhwere - has led to the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. It refuses to recognise that Pakistan is no ally but an enemy trying to protect the Taliban for several imoportant reasons. While writing this, they still try to extinguish the fires on those 140 vehicles in that NATO convoy - Not at the Afghan border, but in the heart of Pakistan, right outside of Islamabadh... there are so many military ambitions that failed because of self-restraint based on this idea that war and civilised order to be brought into conformity. The UN's military missions also failed for the vast majority of them, for this reason. Having good intentions - is just not enough.I can definitely agree one will probably be more militarily effective if he abandons the current rules of war. But then, the Soviets had been rather brutal in Afghanistan, and the Russians in Chechenya, and it didn't seem to be bringing them success.

either you decide to fight a war, then make sure you can stay with your motives for accepting that decision: be sure, damn sure, of your reasons. Or you decide not to fight a war. just this madness of having just a bit of war, but not too much, and have a little bit of peace in it as well, and a little hope, and a little human quality, and a bit of this and a bit of that, and never too much blood - this idiotic back-and-forth that espeically amongst politicians is so very popular - does not help to limit wars and make them less harmful, but it prolongs them and makes them affecting more people in the long run, and increases the suffering of those affected.

The civility lies in the standards by which somebody decides whether or not to go to war. In other words: the main part of civility is BEFORE the war is declared or not declared.If civility is in the standards and causes that somebody goes to war over, Hamas may actually have a better standard than Israel. Israel is defending its existence, and Hamas on destroying it. Until one remembers how Israel is actually a forced state installed to the wishes of a minority, then while undeniably brave and clever, are artificially kept in existence (by the US in particular) against what are almost natural forces seeking to eradicate the "bump".

Starting from this, you don't have to be Islamic or Palestinian to see how the continued existence of Israel is a huge wrong to the Palestinians with every second it passes, and asking them to accept less is a bit like asking you to accept the permanent residence of this crumb who wound up taking over 90% of your home - you don't even really want 50-50; you want him OUT!

Also, in war, the military and the terrorist have different target priorities. And here again lies a massive difference between both. the more the military degenerates to the "target acceptance levels" of a terrorist - intentionally targetting the civilian poulation - , the more it goes in loss of any claims for being more civilised than the terrorist, here you would be right.In which case, modern terrorists may be little less civilised than the world standard in the 40s. By the way, it is amazing how first you say "civility is BEFORE the war", and now you try and set up some standards for after the war starts as well.

If, however, I do not limit my targetting to targets of military relevance, but intend genocide, or intentionally target the civilians themselves and in the first, making not military targets but civilian population the delcared target of my killing action, then this is what qualifies as terrorism.In short, if it is not too inconvenient for you, you will refrain from killing civilians, but if you perceive a need, you will do so.

[Skybird]

I've yet to re-locate your other author to be honest, but your man Clemens von Wergin asserts (w/o any substantiation either by referencing, logic or precedence BTW) that the breaking of a blockade is a militarily aggressive act, but only tries to imply that running a blockade is equivalent to breaking it, which is as dubious an assertion as equating an "evasion" to an "attack", and leads to cans of worms in the history of blockade.

If police sees through a ruling, for exmaple banning a "demosntration", resisting that order is still a form of violating the state'S auhtority and the resitsnc ei rated to be a passive form of viollance. but violence it is. So is intentionally breaking a blockade an act of aggression/fighting/violence. It may be active aggression in case of the thugs using stabs and knifes, and passive aggression in case of those sitting on the deck, but aggression it is.

So are territorial waters.
And laws on marriage and laws for crime punishment both are laws. Still they are two toitally different things. Blockade, quarantine, embargo and national sovereignity are four totally different things.

So it has a defined location - no different here.
And laws on marriage and laws for crime punishment both are laws. Still they are two toitally different things. Blockade, quarantine, embargo and national sovereignity are four totally different things.

It has a duration - no different here - the duration of territorial waters would be the lifetime of the country.

And laws on marriage and laws for crime punishment both are laws. Still they are two toitally different things. Blockade, quarantine, embargo and national sovereignity are four totally different things.

See location.
See where I said And laws on marriage and laws for crime punishment both are laws. Still they are two toitally different things. Blockade, quarantine, embargo and national sovereignity are four totally different things.

If you have enough of turning in place while chasing your tail, tell me.

A difference but not exactly a plus point, since it is not even clear a nation can actually be in war in a conventional sense with Hamas.
Hamas says it is at war with Israel and will finght until it's ultimate destruction. Israel saysit is at war with Hamas. That is good enough to serve as a description of "war". whether oyu agree with that from some thousand miles away, does not really matter. What matters is the opinion of people liviung in the middle of the w... hm, mess...

In Germany politicians tell us since 8 years that there is no war in Afghanistan. They remind me of you.


Yet the blockade in itself is defensibly illegal. It is not "legal" to enforce an illegal thing.
And I say and many others who are more capable to point at international law say it is legal. Additonally, it is an issue of self-defence.


Bags of cement, old medication, food are "military deliveries?"
Most cement, meidcations and foods is allowed in by the Israeli - after inspections. that the propserous donators sent old medication only becasue more the Palestinians are not worth to them is not Israel's fault. Israel, btw delivers medications by itself too. New ones.

IIRC, in this part we were discussing the responsibility of NATO towards military aggression by one of its own members. Surely, whether the whole national waters business is analogous to blockade (and above I point out the similarities), it would be clear in the scenario the Americans were the aggressors, yet as I said I just don't see NATO abandoning America. Thus, even if you are right that running a blockade with civilian ships (which are not even chartered by the government) is "military aggression", it seems dubious to say NATO is thus justified to break with Turkey.
Your attempt to form a parallal between the national water thing and a naval bloackade, lacks any substance, no matter how often you repeat it. It is a question of preset defintions. you are about national soveriegnity inside national borders in peace times, I am about a bloakcde of a fighting enemy in wartimes. International laws treats both totally different. Enforcing you soveriegnity ans national authority over a piece of land or water belonging to your terriotry, is not the same like blocking the supplies to an enemy in war.

As previously mentioned, the assertion that running a blockade is a "aggressive" act is enormously dubious, sufficiently so that at least one of your own authors apparently shies from stating it. In any case, I can agree that you are non-neutral once you help a side, but it doesn't mean that you are combatant - lest all Israelis turn into combatants from being part of the taxpaying population that helps arms the IDF.

I adressed that when I said (Israelis) are the intended targets to be killed by Hamas. Israelis are not neutral in this, they cannot be, because they are as a nationality, ethnicity, social group, nationl community, the intended target of Hamas that they favour over any other. Hamas does not fight for limited goals and does not only fire against military installations. It tries to kill and destroy everyone and everything Israeli, because the ultimate destruction of Israel itself and the killing of chasing away of it's inhabitants are its goal.

Do you wish to imply that Lusitania had no idea that Britain and Germany were in something of a war, or that they were completely in the dark that the Germans are instituting a blockade against Britain?

I imply, in general, that a ship violating a blockade runs certains risks, no matter whether it knows about the blockade or not. It is up to the blocking force to decide whether or not that violation is touching upon militarily relevant goals, or not, and to decide for according consequences.

So they may not be the greatest human specimens. Law, however, is intended to avoid such judgments.
That's why laws today can be turned this or that way so very often.

(I think I've mentioned in my first post in thread that this is a setup for Israel, so I make no defense on the moralities of the boaters involved.

That is bad, and definitely speaks against your position. these people, and many of their sympathisers, act by deliberate double standards and sentiments that are decisevly anti-semitic (the whole party of theirs is, btw.). when you say you see no need to judge their moral standards which makes them assessing the situation and deciding to do what they do, then this is no compliment for you.

Nevertheless, they followed the rules in this case of the civilized nations, so the law must protect them and condemn Israel.
You can claim as often that you want that Israel is violating laws when enforcing that blockade. It does not chnage a thing in that it remains to be your and some other people's claims only. they knew there was a blackade, of which many say it is formally correctly implemented and legal, and they knew they were running into confrotnation when they challenged that blockade. Of course they are free to decide to do that.And Israel is free to decide to not alolow them succeeeding. and the laws, as I see it and many others, is on side of Israel.

And a principal thing: the violence errupted on one of six boats, and was started by that mob that boarded the ships with the clear and declared intention to become martyrs and make tings as worse as possible. Laws, anyone? Legality, maybe?

Once knifes start cutting through flesh and bullets fly through the air, it is survival yes or no only. You fight, you don't talk. Talk was before, and may be afterwards again - or not.


I think of the whole incident as broadly equivalent of a bunch of thugs confronting a bunch of police, and ending up with the police shooting them up. The thugs might have been *sses and they may have been provocative, but they followed the laws, and so the police were wrong in shooting them).

If you mean that distortion of laws serious, then this must necessarily be the end of debate, because I refuse to continue when defined terms all of a sudden shall not have any communicative meaning anymore.

[NeonSamurai]

Sending aid ships equals the Iraq war? I don't think I can accept that comparison.

It wasn't a comparison, just a demonstration that NATO does not have to back member states in aggressive wars. If Turkey sends military ships into a blockade zone in an attempt to run the blockade or to aid other ships to do so, that is an act of war (an aggressive act of war). NATO would not, nor could not back such a move (NATO is a defensive alliance only).

Well let's think about how the US and Canada have dealth with their native populations. In both countries the natives have been marginalised greatly, in US they are confined to reservations and to a large extent have been annihilated in order to secure more lebensraum for the invaders. So in that sense I guess you're a right, in a way. The Israelis haven't annihilated all of the Palestinians. Then again who says they aren't actively trying to do so now and in the future.

Hmm interesting dodge, rather then address my point, you sidestep it completely and go after an area that my country has nothing to be proud about. Frankly I agree with you that the history and state of affairs is bad. Though not as bad as you may think (it has gotten a lot better over the years). Anyhow I am not going to get into a discussion over that here, as it is totally off topic. If you want to pursue that course, then start a new thread.

And seeing as Gaza is one of the most tightly populated places on the earth I'm not exactly sure where you suppose it is possible to 'hide' there and not be close to civilian housing.

There are plenty of areas where they could set up which would not put the civilian populace in as much danger to counter strikes from Israel. But that defeats the purpose, as Hamas wants as high a civilian body count as possible. The more dead women and children of their own side the better, as they can then take it to the media and cry over how horrible the Jews are. They also pick areas of high civilian population (particularly areas where children can be found like schools) partly to force the Israelis to kill civilians just to get at Hamas, but also to blunt Israel's ability to attack them successfully (forcing Israel to either ignore the target, or give advanced warning). Hamas doesn't give a flying **** about their own people or their welfare.



Anyhow with forum moderator cap on...

I am getting rather tired of the amount of personal ridicule I am seeing in this thread and others lately. I would strongly suggest that those engaging in such behavior try a more respectful approach when interacting with other forum members. Consider this a warning as I am going to start handing out infractions soon for such bad behavior.

The Radio Room forum is not the place for flaming, spewing, or otherwise mouthing off. We do not allow posts where people are called idiots, morons, etc. We respect your freedom of speech, we ask that you respect our rules. You are welcome to express your opinion about games and other subjects. We do not want SUBSIM Review and the Radio Room forums to degenerate into a collection of *This game sux!!!!* and other immature rants. Like something or dislike something about a game, express your thoughts in reasoned and responsible terms. There are any number of forums which allow unbridled idiocy to reign, we want the Radio Room to be a civil, mature forum for discussions about naval and subsims, tactics, mods, playing tips, troubleshooting, and submarine topics in general. As such, we retain the right to edit and/or delete posts we find offensive. We also have the right to ban users who contribute to poisoning the well. Just as a radio talk host has the right to decide which callers he airs and a newspaper editor decides which letters he prints and which he throws away, the moderators in the Radio Room forums have final say on rants and spews they decide should be cut. Don't be a spewmonkey! :)

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

If police sees through a ruling, for exmaple banning a "demosntration", resisting that order is still a form of violating the state'S auhtority

True.

and the resitsnc ei rated to be a passive form of viollance. but violence it is. So is intentionally breaking a blockade an act of aggression/fighting/violence. It may be active aggression in case of the thugs using stabs and knifes, and passive aggression in case of those sitting on the deck, but aggression it is.

"Passive aggression"? So, when all those students were sitting at Tianammen, they were "passively violent" against the Chinese government? No wonder the Chinese crushed them with tanks...

And laws on marriage and laws for crime punishment both are laws. Still they are two toitally different things. Blockade, quarantine, embargo and national sovereignity are four totally different things.

Since both are laws concerning control and freedom of navigation on the seas, I'll say that they are far more similar than your attempt to separate them makes them seem. At least most countries actually explicitly SIGNED their agreement regarding the national waters stuff in UNCLOS. I don't see a lot of nations legitmizing Israel's blockade.

And I say and many others who are more capable to point at international law say it is legal. Additonally, it is an issue of self-defence.

"Self-defence" generally does not extend to attacking other people's ships. You are taking a blockade of dubious legality to justify attacking other nation's ships, a clearly illegal act.

Most cement, meidcations and foods is allowed in by the Israeli - after inspections. that the propserous donators sent old medication only becasue more the Palestinians are not worth to them is not Israel's fault. Israel, btw delivers medications by itself too. New ones.

Ah, so they are not military deliveries...

I imply, in general, that a ship violating a blockade runs certains risks, no matter whether it knows about the blockade or not. It is up to the blocking force to decide whether or not that violation is touching upon militarily relevant goals, or not, and to decide for according consequences.

Oh, so they aren't a military aggressor now?

That is bad, and definitely speaks against your position. these people, and many of their sympathisers, act by deliberate double standards and sentiments that are decisevly anti-semitic (the whole party of theirs is, btw.). when you say you see no need to judge their moral standards which makes them assessing the situation and deciding to do what they do, then this is no compliment for you.

Actually, this is the position of rule-of-law, which judges all equally by actions conducted, not the perceived morals of a person. Whether they are Communists, Islamics or Christians, really trying to help Palestinians or just trying to snub Israel, they conducted one set of actions, and right and wrong should be assessed on that basis.

they knew there was a blackade, of which many say it is formally correctly implemented and legal, and they knew they were running into confrotnation when they challenged that blockade. Of course they are free to decide to do that.And Israel is free to decide to not alolow them succeeeding. and the laws, as I see it and many others, is on side of Israel.

Their freedom to do so is guaranteed by Freedom of Navigation, Israel's only by its near-unilateral blockade.

And a principal thing: the violence errupted on one of six boats, and was started by that mob that boarded the ships with the clear and declared intention to become martyrs and make tings as worse as possible. Laws, anyone? Legality, maybe?

If we start with the premise that Israel's boarding was legally wrong (and of course the guys on board would believe that), then this is truly legitimate (if somewhat doomed) self-defense.

Once knifes start cutting through flesh and bullets fly through the air, it is survival yes or no only. You fight, you don't talk. Talk was before, and may be afterwards again - or not.

I don't blame the Israeli soldiers - they were just following orders.

[Schroeder]

"Passive aggression"? So, when all those students were sitting at Tianammen, they were "passively violent" against the Chinese government? No wonder the Chinese crushed them with tanks...

Are you trying with all force to misunderstand him?:06:

[Skybird]

Are you trying with all force to misunderstand him?:06:

He does.

I think the matter is not important here anymore. To turn and twist things and facts, words and arguments so much as is needed for letting it appear that it is okay to again blame Israel - this is what it is about now.

I will maybe reply to any thoughts of yours again once you have come back to a minimum sense of realism and truthfulness in what you say, Kazuaki. Not before. Becasue with your last post, you just chase your own tail and mistake that for a long distance travel.

[OneToughHerring]

It wasn't a comparison, just a demonstration that NATO does not have to back member states in aggressive wars. If Turkey sends military ships into a blockade zone in an attempt to run the blockade or to aid other ships to do so, that is an act of war (an aggressive act of war). NATO would not, nor could not back such a move (NATO is a defensive alliance only).

So according to you...Turkey vs. Israel - war is on now! :o

Hmm interesting dodge, rather then address my point, you sidestep it completely and go after an area that my country has nothing to be proud about. Frankly I agree with you that the history and state of affairs is bad. Though not as bad as you may think (it has gotten a lot better over the years). Anyhow I am not going to get into a discussion over that here, as it is totally off topic. If you want to pursue that course, then start a new thread.Well you compared the Palestinians efforts to get their homeland to 9/11, a really 'original' and 'clever' comparison indeed. :shifty: But if you compare the reactions of UK and Spain to the bombings in those countries and you see a much more moderate reaction. Not every country feels the need to erase entire nations in order to "set the record straight".

There are plenty of areas where they could set up which would not put the civilian populace in as much danger to counter strikes from Israel. But that defeats the purpose, as Hamas wants as high a civilian body count as possible. The more dead women and children of their own side the better, as they can then take it to the media and cry over how horrible the Jews are. They also pick areas of high civilian population (particularly areas where children can be found like schools) partly to force the Israelis to kill civilians just to get at Hamas, but also to blunt Israel's ability to attack them successfully (forcing Israel to either ignore the target, or give advanced warning). Hamas doesn't give a flying **** about their own people or their welfare.You know if I had to choose on which side I was I'd definitely choose Israel. I mean, it's a lot safer to sit in a tank or a helicopter or a fighter jet and shoot missiles then it is to be on the receiving end and retaliate with what amounts to home made rockets that are probably more dangerous to the users then the intended target, which is pretty much never hit.

But I guess because of the presumed darker skintone of the Palestinians you for one could never sympatize with their cause. :roll:

[OneToughHerring]

Are you trying with all force to misunderstand him?:06:

What are you getting involved there for?

Just answer the question Skybird.

[MH]

You know if I had to choose on which side I was I'd definitely choose Israel. I mean, it's a lot safer to sit in a tank or a helicopter or a fighter jet and shoot missiles then it is to be on the receiving end and retaliate with what amounts to home made rockets that are probably more dangerous to the users then the intended target, which is pretty much never hit.


Ye Ye YE:know:

Should visit those targets sometimes.:damn::damn:
Im for artillery retaliation much more cheaper and good for keeping quiet general population-just a joke

[OneToughHerring]

Ye Ye YE:know:

Should visit those targets sometimes.:damn::damn:
Im for artillery retaliation much more cheaper and good for keeping quiet general population-just a joke

But me saying that being safer in a tank doesn't mean that the Palestinians aren't morally right in the cause. Finns had to fight against the Soviet tanks with Molotov Cocktails and bits of logs that they used to jam the tracks of the tanks. Being the underdog sucks but it's necessary sometimes.

[Oberon]

Ye Ye YE:know:

Should visit those targets sometimes.:damn::damn:
Im for artillery retaliation much more cheaper and good for keeping quiet general population-just a joke

http://zombie.clue-free.com/tpt/newstuff/NukeOrbit.jpg

:03:

[MH]

But me saying that being safer in a tank doesn't mean that the Palestinians aren't morally right in the cause. Finns had to fight against the Soviet tanks with Molotov Cocktails and bits of logs that they used to jam the tracks of the tanks. Being the underdog sucks but it's necessary sometimes.

This discussion is going in circle so i jut say this....

Palestinians have right to Palestinian state (since they seem to want it so much)and most Israelis accepted that.
But... they do all they can to screw themselves up.(look Oslo agreements and later)
They almost got what they SEEMED to want just with stones an Molotov coctails...but it turned out it was about all or nothing.
I'm not blaming common Palestinian(well maybe a little bit since old saying says people get government their deserved) but their terrorist leaders who get influenced easily.

[Happy Times]

You know if I had to choose on which side I was I'd definitely choose Israel. I mean, it's a lot safer to sit in a tank or a helicopter or a fighter jet and shoot missiles then it is to be on the receiving end and retaliate with what amounts to home made rockets that are probably more dangerous to the users then the intended target, which is pretty much never hit.

With the money and arms the Hamas gets they could actually attack only military targets only, what they dont have is the motivation to train and form doctrines and tactics.

They have taken the easy route with terrorism, must a be a cultural thing.

But I guess because of the presumed darker skintone of the Palestinians you for one could never sympatize with their cause. :roll:

I really doubt ts has anything to do with skintone, Israel has wider collection of those.
Its not difficult to sympathize with a civilized people against those that preach murder and destruction in a medieval tone.

[Happy Times]

http://yle.fi/ecepic/archive/00319/10_6__Israel_mielen_319185b.jpg

Some 1200 people marched in Helsinki today to show support for Israel.

:salute:

[Jimbuna]

Some 1200 people marched in Helsinki today to show support for Israel.

:salute:

That's good to know....I'm sure there are many more in Finland who share the same viewpoint :yep:

[OneToughHerring]

With the money and arms the Hamas gets they could actually attack only military targets only, what they dont have is the motivation to train and form doctrines and tactics.

They have taken the easy route with terrorism, must a be a cultural thing.

How typically racist of you to say something like that.

I really doubt ts has anything to do with skintone, Israel has wider collection of those.
Its not difficult to sympathize with a civilized people against those that preach murder and destruction in a medieval tone.

I find Israel's silence concerning it's own acts much more sinister. I'm sure the Palestinians would rather change places with the Israelis instead of languishing in the refugee camps decade after decade.

[MH]

How typically racist of you to say something like that.



I find Israel's silence concerning it's own acts much more sinister. I'm sure the Palestinians would rather change places with the Israelis instead of languishing in the refugee camps decade after decade.

There is a neighborhood in Jerusalem which is defined as refuge camp called Shoufat - many reach Palestinians live there....
Gaza wasn't so bad too till well...truble started.
Most Gazans were working in Israel and lived well by Arab countries standards.

[Happy Times]

How typically racist of you to say something like that.

Its not racist to despise other cultures, they are not equal to each other in any way.
The left is trying to monopolize the right to define what is and isnt racism.
Good luck with that, it will backfire badly.:salute:



I find Israel's silence concerning it's own acts much more sinister. I'm sure the Palestinians would rather change places with the Israelis instead of languishing in the refugee camps decade after decade.

You are skewed in that way, you sympathize the ones playing victim but that are actually the true aggressor.
Hamas and its supporters would bring only darkness in to this world if they ever had their way.

[tater]

If the Palestinians changed places power wise they'd murder all the Jews.

There'd be no "occupied" areas, they'd bump all of them off.

The "activists" were even recorded on the radio telling the IDF to "go back to Auschwitz" (an opinion mirrored by Helen Thomas, though she was diplomatic enough to generalize to "Poland" (there was more than one camp, after all)).

From the Hamas Charter:
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

And the worst bit:
Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).

The government of Palestine, Hamas, in its own words there aspires to murder all jews everywhere.

What more does one need to read to think that Hamas need to be expunged, and anyone supporting them is tantamount to supporting Nazi Germany.

[Happy Times]

The government of Palestine, Hamas, in its own words there aspires to murder all jews everywhere.

What more does one need to read to think that Hamas need to be expunged, and anyone supporting them is tantamount to supporting Nazi Germany.

The Hamas covenant is very clear.
The European left has always supported them, its not that long from when they where themselfs setting bombs and training in the same terror camps.

[Tribesman]

The "activists" were even recorded on the radio telling the IDF to "go back to Auschwitz"
Oh dear. Please keep up to date.
The IDF has recently apologised for that fake recording it put on its propoganda site.
In fact they and the government apologised for quite a few things relating to what they have claimed about events and the aftermath that people here have dutifuly parroted as the "truth".

[tater]

Oh dear. Please keep up to date.
The IDF has recently apologised for that fake recording it put on its propoganda site.
In fact they and the government apologised for quite a few things relating to what they have claimed about events and the aftermath that people here have dutifuly parroted as the "truth".

Sorry if I'm out of date.

What about the meat of the post—the Hamas Charter?

[MH]

Oh dear. Please keep up to date.
The IDF has recently apologised for that fake recording it put on its propoganda site.
In fact they and the government apologised for quite a few things relating to what they have claimed about events and the aftermath that people here have dutifuly parroted as the "truth".


http://idfspokesperson.com/2010/06/05/clarificationcorrection-regarding-audio-transmission-between-israeli-navy-and-flotilla-on-31-may-2010-posted-on-5-june-2010/

[Tribesman]

What about the meat of the post—the Hamas Charter?
That pile of crap is the meat?????
Simple question for ya Tater.
Who is defending Hamas?
In case you didn't notice much criticism of Israels stupidity is because its actions help Hamas.

[tater]

That pile of crap is the meat?????

Yeah, the Hamas Charter IS a pile of ****, I agree.

You're not going to try and defend the Hamas Charter, are you?

I'd be against any religious nutjobs (yeah, I know, that's sort of redundant) who had a similar charter, regardless of flavor.

BTW, the nasty bit I posted is in article seven.

[Happy Times]

Oh dear. Please keep up to date.
The IDF has recently apologised for that fake recording it put on its propoganda site.
In fact they and the government apologised for quite a few things relating to what they have claimed about events and the aftermath that people here have dutifuly parroted as the "truth".

Bla bla..
Where the Turks in that boat part of the Turkish Muslim Brotherhood?
Is Hamas a charter in Muslim Brotherhood?
Is Al Qaida the brainchild of the Muslim Broherhood?

Israel and Europe is the target of these maniacs and they try to divide and conquer, terrorize and immigrate us in to submission.

[OneToughHerring]

Yeah, the Hamas Charter IS a pile of ****, I agree.

You're not going to try and defend the Hamas Charter, are you?

I'd be against any religious nutjobs (yeah, I know, that's sort of redundant) who had a similar charter, regardless of flavor.

How about an entire nation based on the wishes of an imaginary creature that only speaks to certain people? That qualify as religious nutjobbery?

[Tribesman]

Bla bla..
Where the Turks in that boat part of the Turkish Muslim Brotherhood?
Is Hamas a charter in Muslim Brotherhood?
Is Al Qaida the brainchild of the Muslim Broherhood?

What has any of that got to do with the price of cheese?

Israel and Europe is the target of these maniacs and they try to divide and conquer, terrorize and immigrate us in to submission.
Its lucky we have the superior pure white nordic race to defend us then

[Happy Times]

What has any of that got to do with the price of cheese?

Good argument.:yeah:

[tater]

How about an entire nation based on the wishes of an imaginary creature that only speaks to certain people? That qualify as religious nutjobbery?

All religions are nutty.

Which culture has produced more enlightened, secular thinkers in SPITE of religion?

Who is the Arab Spinoza, for example?

Apostasy has one punishment in Islam according to the Hadith. Death. Unlike many other bits that are argued about by Islamic scholars, this one is utterly clear.

Spinoza was effectively excommunicated (the jewish version). Were he a Muslim, he'd have been executed. Note of course that the Spanish Inquisitors would have possibly done the same to him—maybe some Islamic thought rubbed off on them after hundreds of years of ocupation before the reconquista.

[Happy Times]

http://idfspokesperson.com/2010/06/05/clarificationcorrection-regarding-audio-transmission-between-israeli-navy-and-flotilla-on-31-may-2010-posted-on-5-june-2010/

Tribesman again wrong but refuses to admit it.

[tater]

Good argument.:yeah:

He uses that odd turn of phrase a lot.

The point is that the flotilla was terrorist supporters, hoping to aid terrorists politically. Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and any related organizations have nothing at all to offer civilization. They are all in fact anti-civilization, anti-enlightenment, anti-secular... not to mention misogynistic.

I know little about cheese, but it's funny to see people who claim to be enlightened, and progressive come out of the woodwork to defend medieval scumbags who are against virtually everything that is socially progressive (I guess I should be explicit regarding social progressiveness vs the political flavor where it is an attempt to re-badge totalitarianism (communism)—in the latter case they have a lot in common I guess. FWIW, I'm a political conservative (lower case), and in most all ways a social progressive (live and let live). In the US that makes me a "lower case" libertarian I guess.)

[OneToughHerring]

All religions are nutty.

Which culture has produced more enlightened, secular thinkers in SPITE of religion?

Who is the Arab Spinoza, for example?

Apostasy has one punishment in Islam according to the Hadith. Death. Unlike many other bits that are argued about by Islamic scholars, this one is utterly clear.

Spinoza was effectively excommunicated (the jewish version). Were he a Muslim, he'd have been executed. Note of course that the Spanish Inquisitors would have possibly done the same to him—maybe some Islamic thought rubbed off on them after hundreds of years of ocupation before the reconquista.

First you condemn all religions and then begin to find excuses for Jews. Fine logic there, buster. :-?

[Happy Times]

He uses that odd turn of phrase a lot.

The point is that the flotilla was terrorist supporters, hoping to aid terrorists politically. Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and any related organizations have nothing at all to offer civilization. They are all in fact anti-civilization, anti-enlightenment, anti-secular... not to mention misogynistic.

I know little about cheese, but it's funny to see people who claim to be enlightened, and progressive come out of the woodwork to defend medieval scumbags who are against virtually everything that is socially progressive (I guess I should be explicit regarding social progressiveness vs the political flavor where it is an attempt to re-badge totalitarianism (communism)—in the latter case they have a lot in common I guess. FWIW, I'm a political conservative (lower case), and in most all ways a social progressive (live and let live). In the US that makes me a "lower case" libertarian I guess.)

We think about the the same way.:DL
But as living in a nation state i have also concern to to keep it that way, i want controlled immigration by people that will assimilate here.

[Bilge_Rat]

What about the meat of the post—the Hamas Charter?

Not to excuse the Hamas Charter, but in general, you have to be careful about reading official arab texts too literally or interpreting them through the filter of Anglo-Saxon culture.

In Britain and countries which follow its traditions (USA, Canada, etc.), public texts/speech generally either understate or state clearly the intent of the writer.

In more latin countries, for example, France, Italy, Quebec, there is a tendency to exaggerate and use more extremist language than what the real intent of the writer is. In Arab countries, this is even more exaggerated and you may read a text which looks like a declaration of war when that is not at all the intent of the writer.

This can often lead to serious mis-communications. For example, prior to 1967, Nasser often talked about wiping Israel off the face of the earth and made other warlike actions (remilitarisation of the Sinai, closing Sharm-Al-seikh) which caused Israel to think Egypt was planning to attack. Historical research since then has shown that Nasser never seriously planned to attack Israel, but was making his extreme pronouncements to solidify his personal popularity and power at home.

The Hamas charter may be what they actually think or it may just be an intial bargaining position, only time will tell. You have to take the written word or speech with a grain of salt.

Actions are the real litmus test, for example do they stop rocket attacks, do they start to bargain, etc.. Everything in the ME takes a long time.

[Happy Times]

First you condemn all religions and then begin to find excuses for Jews. Fine logic there, buster. :-?

Sometimes i think you are a muslim. :D

[MH]

First you condemn all religions and then begin to find excuses for Jews. Fine logic there, buster. :-?

Jews are not about religion for a very long time-I'm atheist but im Jew.
I also don't remember Jews fighting holly wars or forcing Judaism on others.

Oh right .....we just want take over the world with money and power.:arrgh!::up:

[tater]

First you condemn all religions and then begin to find excuses for Jews. Fine logic there, buster. :-?

No excuses at all. This subject comes up a lot here (religion), and I am 100% consistent.

I condemn religion, but as a pragmatist, and a history buff, I can realize that some religiously informed cultures have evolved to "enlightenment" while others have not.

If you read, you'd know I didn't defend jews, either. Spinoza was only a jew ethnically (a real distinction that the Spaniards invented after they decided they wanted to persecute conversos after they got too many takers when they threatened to kill them all). As a rationalist, he was outside religion, really.

My point was that while non-violently excommunicated in one faith, he'd have been murdered under Islam—and possibly Christianity as well during that period.

As I have said before, even if we assume the Enlightenment happened in spite of religion, it happened in spite of Judeo-Christianity. It was never allowed to happen in spite of Islam.

So while I think all are equally silly, the practice of some have allowed for secular, pluralistic societies to come about, while others have retained their iron-fisted repression on such ideas.

[Happy Times]

Not to excuse the Hamas Charter, but in general, you have to be careful about reading official arab texts too literally or interpreting them through the filter of Anglo-Saxon culture.

In Britain and countries which follow its traditions (USA, Canada, etc.), public texts/speech generally either understate or state clearly the intent of the writer.

In more latin countries, for example, France, Italy, Quebec, there is a tendency to exaggerate and use more extremist language than what the real intent of the writer is. In Arab countries, this is even more exaggerated and you may read a text which looks like a declaration of war when that is not at all the intent of the writer.

This can often lead to serious mis-communications. For example, prior to 1967, Nasser often talked about wiping Israel off the face of the earth and made other warlike actions (remilitarisation of the Sinai, closing Sharm-Al-seikh) which caused Israel to think Egypt was planning to attack. Historical research since then has shown that Nasser never seriously planned to attack Israel, but was making his extreme pronouncements to solidify his personal popularity and power at home.

The Hamas charter may be what they actually think or it may just be an intial bargaining position, only time will tell. You have to take the written word or speech with a grain of salt.

Actions are the real litmus test, for example do they stop rocket attacks, do they start to bargain, etc.. Everything in the ME takes a long time.

Muslim Brotherhood and affiliates are not the same as Nasser, they want it all.
They only take cease fires so they can grow in power, that is all you will get from them.

[Tribesman]

Tribesman again wrong but refuses to admit it.
How on earth was that wrong, they apologised and said their claim was false.

He uses that odd turn of phrase a lot.

Yes, unfortunately its very fitting all too frequently.

The point is that the flotilla was terrorist supporters, hoping to aid terrorists politically.
Was it really? thats a very broad brush

[tater]

Bilge-Rat, their Charter is their Charter. I take it at face value, and everyone should do so and treat them accordingly. If that is a problem for them, they can retract the document, and write another, it is what it is, and any Hamas member in fact endorses that document as written by virtue of party affiliation.

Other supporters only support it the way an American nazi supported Nazism in ww2.

You'll find that all those related organizations have similarly hateful "mission statements."

[tater]

How on earth was that wrong, they apologised and said their claim was false.


It appears they apologized for airing an edited version. Not for faking it.


Was it really? thats a very broad brush

Hamas is a terrorist organization.

That makes supporting Hamas supporting a terrorist organization. It's a very narrow brush, in fact. The Muslim Brotherhood is where AQ came from. Ditto.

[Happy Times]

How on earth was that wrong, they apologised and said their claim was false.

You said the tape was fake? Was it?
Answer you clown.:stare:

[OneToughHerring]

You said the tape was fake? Was it?
Answer you clown.:stare:

Only one clown here and that's you.

[Tribesman]

Not to excuse the Hamas Charter, but in general, you have to be careful about reading official arab texts too literally or interpreting them through the filter of Anglo-Saxon culture.

I think the technical term for the document is a floridly rambling piece of crap.

As I have said before, even if we assume the Enlightenment happened in spite of religion, it happened in spite of Judeo-Christianity. It was never allowed to happen in spite of Islam.

Not quite, there are lots of branches tha have come out of enlightenment in Islam, but the mainstream still call them heretics and apostates.

I also don't remember Jews fighting holly wars
Thats a prickly issue.

[tater]

How about I stop using the word "terrorist" since I don't care about that one way or another, frankly.

Instead, substitute "Islamist" or "Islamist group that supports intentional attacks on civilians" where I said terrorist.

Hamas explicitly supports such attacks, as do AQ, al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Islamic Jihad and some others.

[Happy Times]

Only one clown here and that's you.

Huh?
http://blog.nermo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/redherring.png

[Bilge_Rat]

Bilge-Rat, their Charter is their Charter. I take it at face value, and everyone should do so and treat them accordingly. If that is a problem for them, they can retract the document, and write another, it is what it is, and any Hamas member in fact endorses that document as written by virtue of party affiliation.

Other supporters only support it the way an American nazi supported Nazism in ww2.

You'll find that all those related organizations have similarly hateful "mission statements."

I am not trying to excuse Hamas, only to point out that a more reliable guide is to base yourself on what they do, not what they say.

[Happy Times]

I am not trying to excuse Hamas, only to point out that a more reliable guide is to base yourself on what they do, not what they say.

Then we can take the covenant literally.

[tater]

I think the technical term for the document is a floridly rambling piece of crap.

That says that the current leadership of the Palestinians has no interest in negotiation at all, and that ideally all jews would be murdered per Muhammad's call.

And a rambling piece of crap, too. Yes.


Not quite, there are lots of branches tha have come out of enlightenment in Islam, but the mainstream still call them heretics and apostates.


A Muslim POV:
As the Egyptian scholar AO Altwaijri has written, "Western enlightenment was completely opposed to religion and it still adopts the same attitude. Islamic enlightenment, on the contrary, combines belief and science, religion and reason, in a reasonable equilibrium between these components."

Yes, and belief is consistent with science, lol. Islam is all fundamentalist—literalist. If the book says Noah lived X years ago, and the creation was before that Y years, then the Earth is X+Y years old, period. There's enlightenment for you.

The problem is that Islam is given apologetic credit for stuff like zero (which was really from India), or not destroying greek texts, or in the case of Moorish Spain, for Jewish thinkers that had a much better time of it there than they did in Europe at large. I'll grant that it was good that they did not go Taliban on ancient texts or contemporary thinkers in Spain, but aside from choosing not to exercise the option of an anti-enlightenment by destruction, they didn't contribute themselves.

We could bomb the greatest art museum in Mongolia, for example, at will. Can the US take credit for saving and contributing to Mongolian art because we elect not to destroy it? :)

[Tribesman]

You said the tape was fake? Was it?

yes it was fake, they claimed it was a conversation between them and a specific ship. It wasn't
Now they say it was edited chatter on an open channel but they think it came from one of the ships.

It appears they apologized for airing an edited version. Not for faking it.

An edited version put out as a contemporaneous version and wrongly attributed makes it fake as its a misrepresentation of what it is claiming to be.

Do you remember another relatively recent news event concerning international maritime law, a very damning tape of people on a vessel threatening to shoot.....its real evidence.....well sort of perhaps......maybe but it was edited just a little for effect ......oh sorry its an open channel and you get hundreds of idiots shouting abuse and threats on those open channels and they can be nearly anywhere.

[tater]

I am not trying to excuse Hamas, only to point out that a more reliable guide is to base yourself on what they do, not what they say.

They don't negotiate, and they murder women and children as primary targets. Gotcha.

In this case, the document and their actions are coincident. :)

[Bilge_Rat]

They don't negotiate, and they murder women and children as primary targets. Gotcha.

In this case, the document and their actions are coincident. :)

totally agree. we are on the same side here mate.


I guess it is not the right time to be bringing up finer points of cultural miscommunication. :arrgh!:

[OneToughHerring]

Huh?


<Inappropriate imaged removed, NeonSamurai>

[MH]

Finelly .....:salute:
I guess thats the best you could do..
Go join them little fish:

<Inappropriate imaged removed, NeonSamurai>

[MH]

Actually i hope you will not get banned you are good for ISRAELI PROPAGANDA MACHINE....

[Oberon]

http://myspace.roflposters.com/images/rofl/myspace/1215164347182.jpg.%5Broflposters.com%5D.myspace.jp g

[Dowly]

OTH is AWESOME! :rock:

[Skybird]

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YWI2Mzg4NzA1MTJiNzdmNWMyODhiZWUyNTc4ZjFmODI=


Israel’s Gaza Blockade: It Works

by Jonah Goldberg

The blockade, which is surely causing real suffering, is entirely the fault of Hamas and the Palestinians who support it.

Outraged by Arizona’s immigration policies, the Los Angeles City Council wants to boycott the Grand Canyon State. When will the United Nations condemn Los Angeles for its callous pursuit of collective punishment? To be sure, the boycott is mainly symbolic, but at least in principle the measure is aimed at hurting all Arizonans regardless of whether they support the “regime” in Phoenix. That’s collective punishment.

And why isn’t the world outraged by the wholesale deprivation we’re inflicting on the North Koreans? Why do we even bother talking about sanctions against Iran, which will surely hurt the average Iranian more than the mullahs and the kleptocrats running the Revolutionary Guard?

We’ve been maintaining an embargo against Cuba for half a century. In the lead-up to the Iraq war, the supposed voices of peace and sanity argued for “giving the sanctions time to work” and “keeping Iraq in the box” — the “box” being a stiff sanctions regime. What was so great about the sanctions against South Africa if they too were a form of collective punishment?

Only one blockade is deemed indefensibly beyond the pale: Israel’s blockade of Gaza. Why? Because it imposes “collective punishment.” The U.N. Human Rights Council, which rarely finds time to condemn the barbaric practices of its own members, routinely denounces the blockade as a crime against humanity.

The blockade, which is surely causing real suffering, is entirely the fault of Hamas and the Palestinians who support it. When the brutal terrorist outfit consolidated power in a bloody coup, it proceeded to rain down missiles indiscriminately on Israel for years (talk about collective punishment). Israel finally launched a strike to stop the attacks and was, predictably, denounced as an aggressor by the usual suspects. Even now, Hamas won’t accept the supposedly vital humanitarian cargo seized by the Israelis last week. Why? Because it’s lost its propaganda value, and because it’s been sullied by Jewish hands.

Recently, I debated my friend Peter Beinart on television about the flotilla incident. In the current New York Review of Books, he tears into liberal American Jews for their support of the blockade, a symbol of Israel’s descent into illiberalism. He laments that about 80 percent of Gazans are on food aid and — allegedly — many staples are being denied the Gazans. “Chocolate is not something that can be turned into a missile,” Beinart told me on Fox’s The O’Reilly Factor. “And yet, it’s not allowed to be imported into Gaza.”

Meanwhile, the White House, which initially leaked that there would be “no daylight” between the U.S. and Israel over the flotilla, now wants to use the international furor to leverage Israel into loosening the blockade.

By all means, let the Gazans have their chocolate. Though, as William A. Jacobson, a Cornell law professor and blogger (http://www.legalinsurrection.com/), notes, claims that such items are banned should be taken with a grain of salt. But this is a terrible moment to consider abandoning the blockade.

Why? Because it would rightly be seen as giving the organizers and supporters of this seaborne propaganda stunt a victory. It would signal that America can be conned. It would reward Turkey’s outrageous insult to us (a NATO ally) and to Israel, a longtime friend of Turkey. It would undermine Egypt and other Arab governments (including Fatah) that don’t want Iran’s clients in Hamas strengthened (their propaganda notwithstanding). And it would signal that Iran is the most important power in the Middle East.

Alas, it seems President Obama cannot think straight about Israel because he has so many preconceived notions about it and about his role on the world stage. Like so many liberals, he claims to be “realistic,” but he actually sees things through a literary prism, living in a world of symbolism and metaphors.

It’s amazing to read news reports about how the blockade “serves as a symbol” of this or that. “You know what else the blockade serves as?” asks Commentary’s Abe Greenwald. “A blockade. It separates Israel’s sworn enemies from those who would help them arm and kill Israelis. Oh, and by the way, as a blockade, and not a symbol, the blockade works.”

Alas, such realism has no place in this debate.

— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. © 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

[Happy Times]

Finelly .....:salute:
I guess thats the best you could do..
Go join them little fish:



If OTH is serious he should get in a rubber boat with his knife an try to land in Israel, another head shot for the commandos.:yeah:

Hamas is the one that should be compared to Nazis.
They are pure evil and should be put to prison and their children taken way from them.
Othewise our children will have to fight the wars we should have fought.
I hope we get the courage, maybe when the oil runs out.:hmmm:


Hamas Kids Play
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR8Tfd0i4lY&feature=related

Hamas indoctrination of Kids: Bombs more precious than children
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIBNRVgq59Y&feature=related

[Bilge_Rat]

interesting article in the NY times on the situation inside Gaza:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/world/middleeast/11gaza.html?ref=world

[DarkFish]

Seeing so many pro-Israeli's here, I do wonder: what right do the Israelis have in your opinions, to claim Israel for themselves?

[NeonSamurai]

Ok right, I see any more of this kind of behavior and those involved will likely be facing brig time next. I do not want to see any more offensive and inappropriate images, racist/anti-semitic stuff, or flaming/baiting, etc.

[Schroeder]

Seeing so many pro-Israeli's here, I do wonder: what right do the Israelis have in your opinions, to claim Israel for themselves?
Do you want to start another mass expulsion?
The decision was done in the 40ies by the UN (IIRC). If you say now that the Israeli people have no right to live where most of them were born than you just start injustice again.
How many people are still alive who know a world without Israel? Yes, there are still some, but do you want to turn over the entire region AGAIN for that few. If you consider Israel to be a mistake then it should have been corrected early. Right now you would just expel people from the land they were born in, to give it to people who never lived there themselves (maybe their grandparents did but they did not themselves).


With that sort of logic I might just as well tell the Poles to get out of Stetin as my grandfather was born there and it used to be German before 1945.

[Skybird]

Seeing so many pro-Israeli's here, I do wonder: what right do the Israelis have in your opinions, to claim Israel for themselves?
The same like the "Palestinians", maybe? If you think the "Palestinians" historically are the owener of that place since eons, then you are wrong. as a matter of fact the owenership in that place has chnaged constantly since at least 3.5 thiusand years, and longer.

and this: the Palestinians, as they are called as if that would be a separate ethinic or national group (it isn't), owned that palce for centuries, and it remained to stay a desolate, dry place of sand, rock and rubble. After the Jews took over, just some decades were needed to turn it into a blossoming, in parts: green place.

Edit:

What says Balian in the director's cut of "Kingdom of Heaven" about the city of Jerusalem - I use to think in comparable terms about all Palestine, because it will be true short time in the future, after the last remaining Jewish and Palestine witnesses of the late 40s will have died:

"None of us took this city from the Muslims. No Muslim of the great army now coming against us was born when this city was lost. We fight over an offence we did not give, against those who were not alive to be offended. What is Jerusalem? Your holy places lie over the Jewish temple that the Romans pulled down. The muslim places of worship lie over yours. Which is more holy? The wall? The mosque? the sepulchre? Who has claim? - No one has claim - All have claim. We defend this city not to protect these stones, but the people living within these walls."

Great movie, btw, but only when you watch the director's cut.

[Bilge_Rat]

Its not even that complicated, the claim of the state of israel is the same claim of every other country on earth, namely the right of conquest. This is how every country in the middle east, europe, north america, central america, south america was founded if you go back far enough.

The jews do have an additional claim based on the fact that they were established in palestine from about 1400 BC until they were gradually pushed out by various conquerors, including the Arabs in 630 AD.

In 1947, there was a UN partition plan, which though flawed, could have served as a basis for discussion. Instead, the Arabs decided to settle the issue by war. They lost.

[Jimbuna]

Its not even that complicated, the claim of the state of israel is the same claim of every other country on earth, namely the right of conquest. This is how every country in the middle east, europe, north america, central america, south america was founded if you go back far enough.

The jews do have an additional claim based on the fact that they were established in palestine from about 1400 BC until they were gradually pushed out by various conquerors, including the Arabs in 630 AD.

In 1947, there was a UN partition plan, which though flawed, could have served as a basis for discussion. Instead, the Arabs decided to settle the issue by war. They lost.

That is possibly the most straightforward and succinct post I have yet seen here explaining the reason for the position the area sees itself in today :up:

[Dimitrius07]

Seeing so many pro-Israeli's here, I do wonder: what right do the Israelis have in your opinions, to claim Israel for themselves?

Kid!!! Go home. Your friends who you support so much demand an Islamic states all over the world, (like what they all ready have its not enough). Don`t forget to take your double faced friends with you.:nope:.

[MH]

interesting article in the NY times on the situation inside Gaza:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/world/middleeast/11gaza.html?ref=world

Nice article.
Too bad that if Israel will go into Gaza to wipe out hammas it will be seen as another barbaric agretion against Palestinians.
Blockade is no good active action is no good -world is waiting for democratic election in Gaza?

http://legalhelpline.lp-uk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/ostrich-head-in-sand-sign.gif

[OneToughHerring]

Do you want to start another mass expulsion?

Do you think Jewish people should only live in Israel?

The decision was done in the 40ies by the UN (IIRC). If you say now that the Israeli people have no right to live where most of them were born than you just start injustice again.Quite a few Israelis haven't been born in Israel. Don't you think it's a bit unfair for the ones who haven't been born in Israel to go live there on land stolen from people who DID live there, the Palestinians now in refugee camps?

How many people are still alive who know a world without Israel? Yes, there are still some, but do you want to turn over the entire region AGAIN for that few. Plenty of Palestinians who were born before the starting of Israel.

If you consider Israel to be a mistake then it should have been corrected early. So because the, say, South African apartheid regime had already lasted for a long time there was no reason to take it down?

Right now you would just expel people from the land they were born in, to give it to people who never lived there themselves (maybe their grandparents did but they did not themselves).

With that sort of logic I might just as well tell the Poles to get out of Stetin as my grandfather was born there and it used to be German before 1945.The Poles also stole lots of property from Jewish who either fled the country after the war to places like Israel or perished in the genocide of WW 2. Isn't it about time the Jews came back to Poland to claim their rightfull place in that society from which they were so violently cast out?

[August]

Well lets give Finland back to Sweden then.

[OneToughHerring]

Well lets give Finland back to Sweden then.

I'd prefer it was given back to the Sami who were here first. :up:

[August]

I'd prefer it was given back to the Sami who were here first. :up:

Are you a member of that ethnic group?

[Happy Times]

I'd prefer it was given back to the Sami who were here first. :up:

Hah, when did the Sami nation excist?

[Tribesman]

Kid!!! Go home. Your friends who you support so much demand an Islamic states all over the world, (like what they all ready have its not enough). Don`t forget to take your double faced friends with you.
Thats a strange reply to what in essence was a simple question.
Could it be described as a disproportionate response that fails to deliver at all ....rather like much of Israels actions lately.

[OneToughHerring]

Hah, when did the Sami nation excist?

Doesn't really matter what the past has been but rather what the future is.

The Sami people already have a lot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1mi_people#Sami_policy) that is needed to stake a claim for nationhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1pmi_%28area%29#Politics).

[MH]

The Poles also stole lots of property from Jewish who either fled the country after the war to places like Israel or perished in the genocide of WW 2. Isn't it about time the Jews came back to Poland to claim their rightfull place in that society from which they were so violently cast out?

Very kind of you but no thnx....been there done that, wasnt much fun...
They eat to much herrings in Poland.

[Happy Times]

Doesn't really matter what the past has been but rather what the future is.

The Sami people already have a lot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1mi_people#Sami_policy) that is needed to stake a claim for nationhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1pmi_%28area%29#Politics).

Good luck with that, good way to get extinct.:yeah:

[Happy Times]

Good luck with that, good way to get extinct.:yeah:

Have you made you first bombs ready?
Hint, suicide tactics might be difficult as the population is so small.

[MH]

Doesn't really matter what the past has been but rather what the future is.

The Sami people already have a lot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1mi_people#Sami_policy) that is needed to stake a claim for nationhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1pmi_%28area%29#Politics).

Will you support them?

[OneToughHerring]

Will you support them?

Sure, I'm partly Sami myself. It is already possible to be a citizen of Sami / Sápmi if your parents are Sami, not sure how it works.

[OneToughHerring]

Have you made you first bombs ready?
Hint, suicide tactics might be difficult as the population is so small.

Maybe you should just go defend your gay brothers in Åland, you know the ones who are exempt from the military and get all kinds of tax breaks.

[Happy Times]

Maybe you should just go defend your gay brothers in Åland, you know the ones who are exempt from the military and get all kinds of tax breaks.

Hah, my mother tongue is Finnish i just recognize my roots honestly.
Finnish speaking Finn with, Ostrobothnian, Karelian, Swedish and German ancestry.
You seem want Finland to brake to some tribal cultures and stone age.
Swedish speaking Finns are Finns, so are the Sami speakers.

The Sami and Åland autonomy is not ment as first stage of independence.
The Ålanders have also a separatist movement and i dont accept their exemption from conscription.

[Jimbuna]

Hah, my mother tongue is Finnish i just recognize my roots honestly.
Finnish speaking Finn with, Ostrobothnian, Karelian, Swedish and German ancestry.
You seem want Finland to brake to some tribal cultures and stone age.
Swedish speaking Finns are Finns, so are the Sami speakers.

The Sami and Åland autonomy is not ment as first stage of independence.
The Ålanders have also a separatist movement and i dont accept their exemption from conscription.

So what is the Finnish conscription age?

[Skybird]

The Mavi Marmara and a second ship did not even had any aid loaded.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2010/Equipment_aid_Gaza_flotilla_7-Jun-2010.htm


The Logistics Section of SIBAT (Foreign Defense Assistance and Defense Export Department of the Israel Ministry of Defense), together with COGAT (Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories), are responsible for transferring humanitarian aid to Gaza. They handled the transfer of the equipment that arrived on the flotilla ships from Ashdod Port to the Defense Ministry's humanitarian aid base in Zrifin, which now await Hamas permission for transfer into the Gaza Strip.
Of the seven flotilla ships, only four were freight ships. The Challenger 1 (small yacht), the Sfendonh (small passenger boat) and the Mavi Marmara (passenger ship) did not carry any humanitarian aid, except for the passengers' personal belongings. Of the four freight ships - Gaza, Sofia, Defeny and Rachel Corrie - as of June 7, SIBAT had only offloaded equipment from the Defeny.
As of June 7, the equipment offloaded was loaded onto 26 trucks. (An additional eight trucks are waiting at the Kerem Shalom crossing to enter the Gaza Strip.) The equipment includes:

300 wheelchairs
300 new mobility scooters
100 special mobility scooters for the disabled
Hundreds of crutches
250 hospital beds
50 sofas
Four tons of medicine
20 tons of clothing, carpets, school bags, cloth and shoes
Various hospital equipment - closets and cabinets, operating theater equipment, etc.
Playground equipment
Mattresses
The equipment remaining at Ashdod Port on the three ships which have not been offloaded include some 2000 tons of construction equipment - building materials and tools, and construction waste (rubble, toilets, sinks and cement) for re-use.

It should be noted that:
1. The equipment does not constitute humanitarian aid in the accepted sense (basic foodstuffs, new and functional equipment, fresh medicines).
2. The equipment awaiting entry into the Gaza Strip, both at the Kerem Shalom crossing and the Defense Ministry base, has been approved by COGAT.
3. The humanitarian aid on all the ships was scattered in the ships' holds and thrown onto piles and not packed properly for transport. The equipment was not packaged and not properly placed on wooden bases.
4. Because of the improper packing, some of the equipment was crushed by the weight in transit.
5. The medicines and sensitive equipment (operating theater equipment, new clothing, etc.) are being kept in cool storage at the Defense Ministry base. Some of the medicines have already expired, and some will expire soon. The operating theater equipment, which should be kept sterile, was carelessly wrapped.
6. A large part of the equipment, particularly shoes and clothing, was used and worn.
7. The construction material must be approved by COGAT and the political echelons before it can be transferred to the Gaza Strip.

During the week of 30 May - 5 June 2010, 484 truckloads (12,413 tons) of aid were transferred from Israel to the Gaza Strip via the land crossings.

[OneToughHerring]

Gaza aid flotilla survivor recollects deadly raid by Israeli military

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqI-oicoVeA

German Activists File War Crimes Complaints

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,700127,00.html

[Happy Times]

Gaza aid flotilla survivor recollects deadly raid by Israeli military

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqI-oicoVeA



This one is a known terrorist supporter, and American traitor etc., i dont know the German.:yeah:

[OneToughHerring]

This one is a known terrorist supporter, and American traitor etc., i dont know the German.:yeah:

He's a US war veteran and a marine, I think he's earned his right to say what he thinks about the people who attacked him. Too bad he didn't dispense some Marine justice on those attackers, I guess his humanity got in the way unlike with the IDF.

[MH]

"Solders came but were unable to get abroad from the sides....Then helicopter came...became combat situation.
A solder fell from upper deck- he took his 9MM"

That souds about right: as we already knew.

Nice try...to twist the story

[OneToughHerring]

"Solders came but were unable to get abroad from the sides....Then helicopter came...became combat situation.
A solder fell from upper deck- he took his 9MM"

That souds about right: as we already knew.

Nice try...to twist the story

What do you mean twist?

Like I said, too bad he didn't use his legal right to defend against pirates and as a former marine he probably could have taken out more then a few of them.

[MH]

What do you mean twist?

Like I said, too bad he didn't use his legal right to defend against pirates and as a former marine he probably could have taken out more then a few of them.

Too bad?
Probably he is not THAT stupid(because he was a marine?) as the others were-that is if this part of his story is truth.

[CaptainHaplo]

You know - I have to say I am getting rather disappointed that the calling for intentional killing of people simply based on their nationality is being continually allowed here at Subsim....

[Dimitrius07]

Nice try...to twist the story

Well thats the only thing the haters can do well.... most of the time. You people don`t learn your lessons do you :nope:.

[OneToughHerring]

You know - I have to say I am getting rather disappointed that the calling for intentional killing of people simply based on their nationality is being continually allowed here at Subsim....

*tries to remember the discussions about the Somali pirates*

What you say scores very high on the Hypocrisy-O-Meter. Btw tell HappyTimes not make any further threats against me personally.

[DarkFish]

Do you want to start another mass expulsion?
The decision was done in the 40ies by the UN (IIRC). If you say now that the Israeli people have no right to live where most of them were born than you just start injustice again.No, by all means, a mass expulsion is the last thing I would want.

But still I have to agree with OTH here: "Quite a few Israelis haven't been born in Israel. Don't you think it's a bit unfair for the ones who haven't been born in Israel to go live there on land stolen from people who DID live there, the Palestinians now in refugee camps?"
How come that many members of this forum find it all to well if foreigners (Jews) come from all over the place to claim Palestine as their own, while they angrily cry out loud if foreigners (Muslims) come to live in Western Europe?
It's exactly the same. And now don't start the "Muslims are inferior to Christians/Jews, and they want to take over western society" game. Even if it's true, it doesn't matter. People from a different ethnicity immigrate en masse to one country and replace it's population, culture and religion. Yet we Westerners somehow have the right to complain about that, while the Palestines don't:doh:
I'm against the Muslim immigrants here in Europe just as much as many of you - but I'm against the Israelis as well.
If you're against mass immigration - at least be consistent in it.

The same like the "Palestinians", maybe? If you think the "Palestinians" historically are the owener of that place since eons, then you are wrong. as a matter of fact the owenership in that place has chnaged constantly since at least 3.5 thiusand years, and longer.The ownership has indeed changed dramatically. But that doesn't make it a right thing for new groups (the Jews) to come and claim the land. That would be like saying it's okay to go to a certain bank and rob it, because that particular bank was robbed many times in the past.

and this: the Palestinians, as they are called as if that would be a separate ethinic or national group (it isn't), owned that palce for centuries, and it remained to stay a desolate, dry place of sand, rock and rubble. After the Jews took over, just some decades were needed to turn it into a blossoming, in parts: green place.That doesn't give the conqueror the right to conquer.
You could say the same about the US, it's been a quite prosperous country ever since the whites conquered it from the Indians. But does that make it more just?
I'd rather live as a poor man on Dutch soil than as a rich man on now-Arab-that-once-was-Dutch soil. Wouldn't you, Skybird?

Its not even that complicated, the claim of the state of israel is the same claim of every other country on earth, namely the right of conquest. This is how every country in the middle east, europe, north america, central america, south america was founded if you go back far enough. If there somehow is a "right" of conquest, there surely is a right to defend oneself from conquest as well.

The jews do have an additional claim based on the fact that they were established in palestine from about 1400 BC until they were gradually pushed out by various conquerors, including the Arabs in 630 AD.Which means most Jews haven't lived there for 1400 years.
That past is long gone. Those battles have been fought. But the Israel-Palestine conflict is very much alive, and in this conflict the Palestines are the ones that have lived there longest.

In 1947, there was a UN partition plan, which though flawed, could have served as a basis for discussion. Instead, the Arabs decided to settle the issue by war. They lost.Well, what would you say if half the population of Blabladistan migrated to your country, and the UN said "hey, why don't you split up your country and donate half of it to the invaders?".
Of course they rejected the proposal. They did not want to lose half their country.

You know - I have to say I am getting rather disappointed that the calling for intentional killing of people simply based on their nationality is being continually allowed here at Subsim....:06:
I haven't seen anyone post something like "shoot all Jews". Have you?
If you have seen someone call for intentional killing of people, yes that should be disallowed.

[MH]

No, by all means, a mass expulsion is the last thing I would want.

But still I have to agree with OTH here:
"Quite a few Israelis haven't been born in Israel. Don't you think it's a bit unfair for the ones who haven't been born in Israel to go live there on land stolen from people who DID live there, the Palestinians now in refugee camps?"
How come that many members of this forum find it all to well if foreigners (Jews) come from all over the place to claim Palestine as their own, while they angrily cry out loud if foreigners (Muslims) come to live in Western Europe?
It's exactly the same. And now don't start the "Muslims are inferior to Christians/Jews, and they want to take over western society" game. Even if it's true, it doesn't matter. People from a different ethnicity immigrate en masse to one country and replace it's population, culture and religion. Yet we Westerners somehow have the right to complain about that, while the Palestines don't:doh:
I'm against the Muslim immigrants here in Europe just as much as many of you - but I'm against the Israelis as well.
If you're against mass immigration - at least be consistent in it.

The ownership has indeed changed dramatically. But that doesn't make it a right thing for new groups (the Jews) to come and claim the land. That would be like saying it's okay to go to a certain bank and rob it, because that particular bank was robbed many times in the past.

That doesn't give the conqueror the right to conquer.
You could say the same about the US, it's been a quite prosperous country ever since the whites conquered it from the Indians. But does that make it more just?
I'd rather live as a poor man on Dutch soil than as a rich man on now-Arab-that-once-was-Dutch soil. Wouldn't you, Skybird?

If there somehow is a "right" of conquest, there surely is a right to defend oneself from conquest as well.

Which means most Jews haven't lived there for 1400 years.
That past is long gone. Those battles have been fought. But the Israel-Palestine conflict is very much alive, and in this conflict the Palestines are the ones that have lived there longest.

Well, what would you say if half the population of Blabladistan migrated to your country, and the UN said "hey, why don't you split up your country and donate half of it to the invaders?".
Of course they rejected the proposal. They did not want to lose half their country.

:06:
I haven't seen anyone post something like "shoot all Jews". Have you?
If you have seen someone call for intentional killing of people, yes that should be disallowed.

DarkFish-What is this philosophical bull....
Just 70 years ago Europeans defined us as a nation when killed 6 million of us.
If it wasn't for Holocaust maybe we would still live in Europe(maybe not)
We came to middle east to create Jewish state here along side Palestinian state but again were told to **** off.
So first time in our modern history Jews decided to fight back and we do...
We don't send Palestinians to gas chambers we dont want to fight them.
We would prefer to spend miliards of $ on our economy instead of weapons.
Israelis are ready to compromise for true peace but have no partners here.
So if you think that Arabs are right then OK let them be right but we are not going anywhere....

[DarkFish]

DarkFish-What is this philosophical bull....
Just 70 years ago Europeans defined us as a nation when killed 6 million of us.
If it wasn't for Holocaust maybe we would still live in Europe(maybe not)
We came to middle east to create Jewish state here along side Palestinian state but again were told to **** off.
So first time in our modern history Jews decided to fight back and we do...
We don't send Palestinians to gas chambers we dont want to fight them.
We would prefer to spend miliards of $ on our economy instead of weapons.
Israelis are ready to compromise for true peace but have no partners here.
So if you think that Arabs are right then OK let them be right but we are not going anywhere....What's happened to you in the Holocaust is horrible. It's undoubtedly one of the lowest moments in mankind.
But however tragedy it's been, it doesn't give you the right to invade a county and claim it as your own.

You say that somehow because you have been victims of one of the biggest mass-murders in history, you are entitled to claim Israel for yourselves. How is that?

If the Hutus or the Tutsis (can't remember who killed who) came to Israel and said "we claim this land because we've been the victim of genocide" - wouldn't you call them nuts?

[MH]

What's happened to you in the Holocaust is horrible. It's undoubtedly one of the lowest moments in mankind.
But however tragedy it's been, it doesn't give you the right to invade a county and claim it as your own.

You say that somehow because you have been victims of one of the biggest mass-murders in history, you are entitled to claim Israel for yourselves. How is that?


Isn't ISRAEL a Jewish land?



If the Hutus or the Tutsis (can't remember who killed who) came to Israel and said "we claim this land because we've been the victim of genocide" - wouldn't you call them nuts?

Every one is talking about international law so wasn't Palestine divided by international law to Jews and Palestinians?
Did WE go to war after UN gave Israel its independence?
Do you really believe its all just about Palestinians?

Why do you think Iran is calling for destruction of Israel-because of Palestinians?
Where hammas is getting its support?
Why we had to bomb Iraqi reactor in 81 just because we are paranoid people or because Saddam Hussein was into Palestinian human rights?

If it was all just about Palestinians we would be living here happily ever after.

I call Arabs NUTS because history shows that whole nations can go nuts.
Arabs support that historical data-yes its not politically correct not civilized or not fashionable to say such thing but thats the truth.
By my standarts they are ****ing crazy.

[DarkFish]

Isn't ISRAEL a Jewish land?Because you made it. Palestine used to be a muslim land.

Every one is talking about international law so wasn't Palestine divided by international law to Jews and Palestinians?
Did WE go to war after UN gave Israel its independence?Exactly - the UN gave. Nobody bothered to ask the Palestinians.

Do you really believe its all just about Palestinians?

Why do you think Iran is calling for destruction of Israel-because of Palestinians?
Where hammas is getting its support?
Why we had to bomb Iraqi reactor in 81 just because we are paranoid people or because Saddam Hussein was into Palestinian human rights?

If it was all just about Palestinians we would be living here happily ever after.Of course the battles are not "just about Palestinians". There are a lot of dirty political games being played. But that doesn't change the fact that the Jews came out of nowhere and claimed Palestine for themselves.

[MH]

So what do you suggest?

[Happy Times]

What's happened to you in the Holocaust is horrible. It's undoubtedly one of the lowest moments in mankind.
But however tragedy it's been, it doesn't give you the right to invade a county and claim it as your own.

You say that somehow because you have been victims of one of the biggest mass-murders in history, you are entitled to claim Israel for yourselves. How is that?

If the Hutus or the Tutsis (can't remember who killed who) came to Israel and said "we claim this land because we've been the victim of genocide" - wouldn't you call them nuts?

Jews have had presence thousands of years, they have been migrating back since the crusades ended, increasingly during the past three hundred years, massively after the holocaust.:yeah:

Jerusalem had Jewish majority 150 years ago, there was no country there when Israel was founded.

Arabs didnt respect the UN resolutions or international recognitions.
They have tried since to destroy Israel but failed, tell us what is your solution to the conflict kept up by the Arabs?

[Happy Times]

So what do you suggest?

:haha: You beat me to it.

[DarkFish]

I suggest nothing in particular. I don't know what should happen.
It's simply too late to give the entire nation back to the Palestines.

But maybe a large part of it, or a change in Israeli politics to make it a combined Palestine-Israeli state...

I don't know.

[DarkFish]

Jews have had presence thousands of years, they have been migrating back since the crusades ended, increasingly during the past three hundred years, massively after the holocaust.:yeah:

Jerusalem had Jewish majority 150 years ago, there was no country there when Israel was founded.Jerusalem may have had a Jewish majority - but overall the Jews were heavily outnumbered: in 1850 only 4%.

Arabs didnt respect the UN resolutions or international recognitions.Of course not, since the UN simply took their land away from them. Would you recognise it if the UN gave half your country to some group of immigrants?

They have tried since to destroy Israel but failed, tell us what is your solution to the conflict kept up by the Arabs?see previous post;)

[MH]

I suggest nothing in particular. I don't know what should happen.
It's simply too late to give the entire nation back to the Palestines.

But maybe a large part of it, or a change in Israeli politics to make it a combined Palestine-Israeli state...

I don't know.

Exacly...but you criticize.
We are in the middle of this **** and we do all we can.
One thing is sure there will be NO combined state as you suggest.
Imagine combining Netherlands with Iran.
Its against human rights lol.

[Happy Times]

Jerusalem may have had a Jewish majority - but overall the Jews were heavily outnumbered: in 1850 only 4%.

Of course not, since the UN simply took their land away from them. Would you recognise it if the UN gave half your country to some group of immigrants?



Werent the Jews the ones that got conquered, expelled, and immigrated by the Arabs?

Then they got 80% of the European Jews killed in Holocaust.

After WW2 Jews where still persecuted in Eastern Europe, Middle East, North Africa and even UK and France.

Millions displaced people.

Where the hell should they go?
How much shoud they give back, they dont really have that much.
Its a small strip with large part of it desert, half of Netherlands.
Its all they got.

They have the same problems every nation has to deal with, they bicker with themself as we do.
But added to that they also get rockets flying by the thousands from all directions, buses blowing up and maniacs developing nukes to nail them.

They really have to love the place to live there, they have to sacrifice a lot for that.
You cant be selfish in Israel, you have give your time and money or even life to the service of your fellow citizens and country.
They try to live normal lives but they cant just party all the time and chill.:|\\
We should give them respect and see it from their point of view.



UN has no basis to do that to Finland, we have been living here since the ice melted.;)



Many of the so called Palestinians are fake people with forged identities, what is their claim to the place?
I will bet that if the Palestinans get their state they will mess it up in a year and if the Jews where gone and they had it all they would blame someone else.

[Happy Times]

I call Arabs NUTS because history shows that whole nations can go nuts.
Arabs support that historical data-yes its not politically correct not civilized or not fashionable to say such thing but thats the truth.
By my standarts they are ****ing crazy.

Off course thats an generalization but large part or even majority seem to be.

Every honest observer sees that from our cultural context they are mad as a hatter!

We can never be in total peace in this world and i dont think our cultures are never capable of peaceful coexistence, havent been since they pushed out from the Arabian peninsula.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i08L09V0_sg

[Sailor Steve]

Why stop with 1948? If the land should be "given back", why not reinstate the Ottoman Empire and give it all back to the Turks? Why not go back to Alexander and give it all back to the Greeks? Or the Italians?

[Skybird]

from
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2010/06/israel-human-decency-common-humanity-by-eve-garrard.html (http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2010/06/israel-human-decency-common-humanity-by-eve-garrard.html)

Israel, human decency, common humanityby Eve Garrard

Fintan O'Toole thinks that Israel regards itself as 'exempt from the demands of common humanity (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0608/1224272053591.html)' (via Z Word Blog (http://blog.z-word.com/)). Iain Banks thinks that 'simple human decency (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/03/boycott-israel-iain-banks)' means nothing to Israel (see this normblog post (http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2010/06/banks-of-hypocrisy.html)).

Two well-known writers, very anxious to tell the world that Israel lacks humanity. Israel's not like the rest of us, the rest of the human family. Compared to other nations, it's inhuman. It doesn't recognize what everyone else knows about, the simple requirements of being decently human. It ought to recognize these things, it isn't hard to do so, since they're so simple; and most other people do, since they're part of common humanity.

Leave aside the sinister provenance of that claim, and let's just consider it on its own.

Turkey has killed between 30,000 and 40,000 Kurds in the last 30 years; it occupies North Cyprus; it blockades Armenia and denies its own historical genocide. But Israel lacks simple human decency.

Sri Lanka, at the same time that Israel was fighting in Gaza (around 1300 dead) killed about 25,000 of its own civilians in the course of repressing an insurgency. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity.

Sudan has killed something in the order of 200,000 people in Darfur, with countless rapes and tortures alongside. But Israel lacks simple human decency.

Iran rapes and tortures and murders its own dissidents who ask for democracy; it hangs young gays, it oppresses women. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity.

Yemen is blockading South Yemen, it lets no food, medicine or water through; unlike Israel, which lets around 15,000 tons of supplies into Gaza every week. But Israel lacks simple human decency.

Egypt is considering a law to strip their citizenship from any Egyptian who marries an Israeli; it persecutes Copts; it blockades Gaza. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity.

Russia kills 25,000 to 50,000 Chechens, and almost completely razes the capital city of Grozny; its soldiers inflict hideous tortures on their prisoners before killing them; investigative journalists are murdered. But Israel lacks simple human decency.

China kills somewhere between half a million and one and a quarter million Tibetans in the course of quashing Tibet's independence. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity.

In Pakistan, Christian churches are burned, hundreds of Ahmadiyyas are killed, violence towards women is endemic. But Israel lacks simple human decency.

In Saudi Arabia, no churches are allowed, no Israeli Jews may enter, women are subject to gender apartheid. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity.

Congo: what can one say about Congo? More than that 5 million - 5 million - people have been killed in its wars, alongside innumerable rapes and hideous tortures? But Israel lacks simple human decency.

Now, here's one especially for Iain Banks: the USA and the UK initiate a war in Iraq in which more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians are killed. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity.

France trained and armed the Hutu genocidaires who killed around 800,000 civilians in the Rwanda genocide, and continued to protect them even as they lost power to the incoming Tutsis. But Israel lacks simple human decency.

Three things to note. First, most of the other cases I've mentioned have involved far worse horrors than anything Israel has done. But Israel is the one which Banks and O'Toole charge, not with acting wrongly, or having bad judgement, but with being deliberately impervious to morality, with not even rising to the most basic level of decency. Banks and O'Toole (and indeed many others) level this charge at Israel alone. We won't be hearing them say that the Chinese are deliberately impervious to morality, or that the Turks lack simple human decency. Only Israel. Why is this?

Second, we can't in fact leave aside the sinister provenance of these charges. O'Toole at least claims to know about the Holocaust, and what led to that horror; it's possible that Banks knows something about it too. It's a commonplace of historical explanation that one of the enabling factors was the dehumanization of the Jews, the constant Nazi propaganda about how they weren't fully human, how they didn't have the normal moral sentiments and beliefs, about how they saw themselves as the chosen people, above ordinary morality. Here we see these dehumanizing lies being reproduced, 60 years later, about Israel, and only about Israel. Why is this?

Third, and most importantly, every point I've made in this post has (http://blog.z-word.com/) been (http://normblog.typepad.com/) made (http://engageonline.wordpress.com/) before (http://hurryupharry.org/), by many (http://martininthemargins.blogspot.com/) others (http://efrafandays.wordpress.com/), many many (http://mickhartley.typepad.com/) times (http://thecst.org.uk/blog/): forcefully, cogently, analytically; both passionately and dispassionately; with humour and with despair. It hasn't made the slightest difference to the likes of Banks and O'Toole. Nor to the many others shouting or whispering at us, in the teeth of the evidence, that Gaza is the new Warsaw Ghetto, and that Israel is really Nazi Germany come again - and so it's fine to hate Israel, it's to your credit to hate it, it shows the world that you have simple human decency.

Why is this? And where will it lead? (Eve Garrard)

Norman Geras' blog? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Geras

[Tribesman]

Every one is talking about international law so wasn't Palestine divided by international law to Jews and Palestinians?

No, because the legal foundation of this was based on a document which pretty much guaranteed that such an event could never really happen.
Plus of course there were a pile of other terms and conditions which were broken which makes it illegal as something is only properly legal if it ticks all the required boxes.

Isn't ISRAEL a Jewish land?

It depends on what you call Israel. Where are its borders and where is its capital?
But hold on, in one of you divergent moments didn't you go on about how Israel is not a Jewish land?

[Tribesman]

Fintan O'Toole thinks that Israel regards itself as 'exempt from the demands of common humanity (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0608/1224272053591.html)'
Thats a good article O'Toole writes. I do like the ending line.
It does spell out an essential truth, a truth that is demonstrated here frequently by Isreals "friends" holding positions which are not to Israels benefit. Like Sky with his unrestricted war which gives legitimacy to the worst terrorist attrocities imaginable, or those who like the right of conquest which means the palestinins have the right to keep on killing until they win something.

[MH]

Thats a good article O'Toole writes. I do like the ending line.
It does spell out an essential truth, a truth that is demonstrated here frequently by Isreals "friends" holding positions which are not to Israels benefit. Like Sky with his unrestricted war which gives legitimacy to the worst terrorist attrocities imaginable, or those who like the right of conquest which means the palestinins have the right to keep on killing until they win something.

Good point but actually people like you legitimize Palestinian leadership double standard behavior.
People like you who back up suicidal bombing or any means while talking about human rights.
We don't treat Palestinians as subhumans(visit Israel sometimes)they treat themselves this way because its serves their purpose.

Israel was even so stuped and naive to be ready to give up All so called territories and go back to 67 borders (thats compromise isn't it?) but got slap on the face.

The only way to force peace here is to stop falling for that double standard behavior like pouting wind in sails of organization like hammas and similar to them.
You Tribesman and people like you make peace here impossible -you just don't understand that because you don't know what middle east is all about.


Now if you think we are the conquerors then OK we are conquerors of historically our land...but we want to compromise and we want to live at peace within SECURE borders.

[Bilge_Rat]

So if you think that Arabs are right then OK let them be right but we are not going anywhere....

Exactly.

I would love to live in a place where everyone loves his neighbour, everyone gives based on his capacity and receives based on his needs, but we do not live on paradise, we live on earth where humans have been exploiting and killing each other for thousands of years.

In 48, there were 1.2 million arabs and 600,000 jews living in Palestine. As a result of the war, 800,000 arabs went into exile. Am I happy it happened? No.

I am also not happy that 1,000,000 jews who had been peacefully living for centuries in the ME and north africa were booted out after 48.

I would be even less happy if we had lost the 48 war and 600,000 israelis had been killed or booted out.

Israel is not perfect. It is a nation-state trying to survive under dangerous circumstances in one of the worst spots on earth. Like any other governments, it makes mistakes, yet it has managed to remain a democracy governed by the rule of law. It may not be perfect, but I would stack it up against any nation-state in the region and most on planet earth.

No one knows if Israel will survive long term, but one thing which is certain is that we will go down fighting and so far, we have a pretty good track record. :)

[MH]

Why stop with 1948? If the land should be "given back", why not reinstate the Ottoman Empire and give it all back to the Turks? Why not go back to Alexander and give it all back to the Greeks? Or the Italians?

Common man... just drink you beer and play your guitar....
Not bad a band you got there BW.

[MH]

But hold on, in one of you divergent moments didn't you go on about how Israel is not a Jewish land?

There are about a million Muslim and Christian Palestinians that live within Israel.
Some of them in eastern Jerusalem since 67 and villages some across Israel since 48.
Believe it or not they don't want to be part of Palestinian state and they are in great majority against the activist who want those territories to be a part of such a state.
The reason is that they live in only democratic country in middle east as they also know what Arab states are all about.

The relation between them and Jews are not perfect(a lot can be written about it) but have nothing to do with apartheid.

[Oberon]

Or the Italians?

SPQR!

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/2/14/633701990426061510-RomanArmy.jpg

[Skybird]

The relation between them and Jews are not perfect(a lot can be written about it) but have nothing to do with apartheid.

Ironically, while Turkey now tries to present itself as the great friend of Arabs (closing trade relations, Syria) and Persians (Iran), and try to present itself as the mighty voice of Palestinian interests, the Turks traditionally look down on Arabs like Arabs look down on Palestinians. That I do not only read, but that I have witnessed myself many times in Turkey.

It's like this since the beginning of the Ottoman empire, for which the Arabs were nothing more than camel farmers, of even cattle that could bite and therefore one had to keep an eye on. So, again Turkey is instrumentalising the Palestinians and abuses them, with Palestinians even applauding them for it. Oh yes, arabs and Persians and Palestinians and turks - they all love each other, they are one big united family. HAHAHAHA!!! The only thing that unites them, is the non-racial, non-national, non-ethnical concept of the one, big, global Ummah. Beyond that, they maintain cut throat-brotherhood relations.

Add to this kind of family life the internal tribal rivalry of Arabs time ago, and you have an idea why Lawrence of Arabia (the title alone is worth laughing!) necessarily had to fail despite his good intentions.

In German, there is a nice phrase that describes the Turkish instrumentalisation of the Palestinians perfectly: "jemandem den Kakao zu trinken geben, durch den man ihn noch zuvor gezogen hat."

[DarkFish]

Werent the Jews the ones that got conquered, expelled, and immigrated by the Arabs?Many, many years ago. As I said, that battle has been fought. The Jews have lost it. But the Israel-Palestine battle is still going on. And in this battle the Palestinians are the ones that got conquered, expelled and immigrated by the Jews.

Then they got 80% of the European Jews killed in Holocaust.

After WW2 Jews where still persecuted in Eastern Europe, Middle East, North Africa and even UK and France.Does that somehow give them the rights to claim a place as their own?

Millions displaced people.

Where the hell should they go?I don't care where they should have gone - I do care that they came out of nowhere and stole the land from the Palestines.

How much shoud they give back, they dont really have that much.
Its a small strip with large part of it desert, half of Netherlands.
Its all they got.It's all they got, but they shouldn't even have it in the first place.
As I said, I think it's too late to simply give all of Israel back to the Palestinians. Israel has a history already. There are new generations. Generations that have never lived anywhere else than Israel. These people have as much right to live there as the Palestinians.

As for how much should be given back, or what else should happen - I don't know.

They have the same problems every nation has to deal with, they bicker with themself as we do.
But added to that they also get rockets flying by the thousands from all directions, buses blowing up and maniacs developing nukes to nail them.If you conquer a land, rockets, bus bombs and nuking maniacs is what you can expect. If you don't want war - don't conquer in the first place.

They really have to love the place to live there, they have to sacrifice a lot for that.
You cant be selfish in Israel, you have give your time and money or even life to the service of your fellow citizens and country.
They try to live normal lives but they cant just party all the time and chill.:|\\It's tragic, but as I said it's what you can expect if you come and take over the country.

We should give them respect and see it from their point of view.We should give the Palestinians respect and see it from the Palestinian point of view.

UN has no basis to do that to Finland, we have been living here since the ice melted.;)Doesn't matter if there's a basis or not, would you like it? Would you agree with it?

Many of the so called Palestinians are fake people with forged identities, what is their claim to the place?If they don't originally come from Palestine, their claim to the place is none.
But even more Israelians do not originally come from the Palestine area. What is their claim to the place?

I will bet that if the Palestinans get their state they will mess it up in a year and if the Jews where gone and they had it all they would blame someone else.Doesn't matter if they'd mess it up or not.
This argument of yours is exactly the same as one of those semi-arguments for colonization in the past: "Those poor black people are too stupid to rule themselves, we white people should conquer Africa to bring them some civilization"

[MH]

I don't care where they should have gone - I do care that they came out of nowhere and stole the land from the Palestines.



Thats exactly why we here.....

[Tribesman]

Good point but actually people like you legitimize Palestinian leadership double standard behavior.

Where have I said anything in favour of the Palestinian leadership?

People like you who back up suicidal bombing or any means while talking about human rights.

Really? Where?
Honestly MH you are just flailing about snapping without the faintest idea what you are trying to bite into.
We don't treat Palestinians as subhumans(visit Israel sometimes)they treat themselves this way because its serves their purpose.

That isn't actually true is it.
Just look at one example from that article Sky posted about the inhumane treatment Egypt is introducing. how long has Israel already had a similar policy?
You don't have to look far for piles of cases where inhumane treatment is meted out to citizens in Israel just because they are not the chosen people.
You keep on doing this MH attacking poeple for views they don't hold then agreeing that Israel ain't perfect while giving Israel carte blanche.

Israel was even so stuped and naive to be ready to give up All so called territories and go back to 67 borders (thats compromise isn't it?) but got slap on the face.

That isn't true either, come on this is simple everyday stuff. The sticking points are well documented from all sides so why do you bother making things up.

Now if you think we are the conquerors then OK we are conquerors of historically our land...
Wouldn't that be conquerors of land that historicly they conquered for a while before getting conquered by conquerers who in turn were conquered.......ad infinitum.

...but we want to compromise and we want to live at peace within SECURE borders.
Really? Yet the sticking points are always the few issues on which neither side will compromise.
BTW you frequently mention the word "we" yet there are currently more than half a dozen "peace plans" by various Israeli parties, some of those plans are very extremist and show absolutely no desire to compromise on anything. But thats the problem with taking yourself and identifying on a national level.

[DarkFish]

Thats exactly why we here.....You mean you went there because nobody cared about you? In that case you have misunderstood my answer.

I didn't mean I don't care about the people who got homeless because of the Nazis.

I meant that it doesn't matter where they should have gone, because they didn't go there in the first place. They should have gone somewhere, preferably to where they lived before the war. I can imagine that'd be too hard for them. In that case they should have gone somewhere else.
Let's assume for the moment that this "somewhere" somehow "should" be Palestine. That still doesn't mean you can storm in and take over the country.

Being prosecuted and murdered in the Holocaust doesn't give you the right to conquer Palestine.

[MH]

That isn't actually true is it.
Just look at one example from that article Sky posted about the inhumane treatment Egypt is introducing. how long has Israel already had a similar policy?
.


What policy -of not granting a Israeli citizenship to someone who comes from Arab country and marries an Israeli Palestinian?.

Yes it is true...there are lots of reason to that besides "chosen people" crap.
One of those reason is that we don't want to be overrun by masses of Arabs who find life much more attractive in Israel than in their own countries.
Which bring us to ...demographics
Yes it is the reason too-as i saied Iranian life style is not my choise.
If Israel was so evil we would not have to worry about that would we?
Isn't that also policy accepted in some CIVILIZED countries to deal with over emigration.

As for others point you brought up no point in answering them since i already did that earlier.


BW..Pardon my "we" i think that my opinion represents the vast majority of Israelis.
If you want to stick with extremist its your choice.
If some country has neonatzis or communists in it it doesn't make necessarily the country as such.

[OneToughHerring]

Common man... just drink you beer and play your guitar....

Maybe you should stick with molesting Palestinian kids...Steve's been here a lot longer then you so better watch it.

[MH]

Maybe you should stick with molesting Palestinian kids...Steve's been here a lot longer then you so better watch it.

You should stick to benign a fish.:yawn:

[TLAM Strike]

Why stop with 1948? If the land should be "given back", why not reinstate the Ottoman Empire and give it all back to the Turks? Why not go back to Alexander and give it all back to the Greeks? Or the Italians?

That is an idea Steve! In an effort to make a more unified and harmonious world I propose we revert all Eurasian national boarders to their pre-1500AD lines. The following changes will be made:
The PRC, Iran, Afghanistan, half of Iraq, half of Turkey, North and South Korea, Kashmir, southern Siberia, all of Russia south and east of Moscow will be given to Mongolia.

All lands along the eastern med coast will be given to Egypt with the following exceptions, Israel, Lebanon and coastal Syria will be claimed in the name of the Pope.

Now Steve as you were around during this time I think you will agree that this arrangment will be in the best interest of all parties.

:O:

[OneToughHerring]

You should stick to benign a fish.:yawn:

Tell me, how easy is it for an average Israeli to leave Israel? What about when the military asks you to come back? Do you have to go? Will they send Mossad after you if you don't return? Doesn't sound too free and democratic to me.

And how about those Orthodox Jewish, they don't have to go to the military. It must be because they are more holy then for example you are.

[MH]

Tell me, how easy is it for an average Israeli to leave Israel? What about when the military asks you to come back? Do you have to go? Will they send Mossad after you?

And how about those Orthodox Jewish, they don't have to go to the military. It must be because they are more holy then for example you are.


Yeah yeah and we eat only humus an falafel(i like to spice it up with Palestinian kid from time to time) and ride camels to work with machine gun at ready.

[OneToughHerring]

Yeah yeah and we eat only humus an falafel(i like to spice it up with Palestinian kid from time to time) and ride camels to work with machine gun at ready.

So you're not answering the questions, very revealing. :cool: Maybe you're Hasidic yourself.

http://peachyforum.com/forums/storage/18/715481/hasidic%20jews.jpeg

[Schroeder]

"Quite a few Israelis haven't been born in Israel. Don't you think it's a bit unfair for the ones who haven't been born in Israel to go live there on land stolen from people who DID live there, the Palestinians now in refugee camps?"
People from a different ethnicity immigrate en masse to one country and replace it's population, culture and religion. Yet we Westerners somehow have the right to complain about that, while the Palestines don't:doh:
I'm against the Muslim immigrants here in Europe just as much as many of you - but I'm against the Israelis as well.
If you're against mass immigration - at least be consistent in it.


I'm a bit short on time so I didn't read what was discussed beyond this point so please forgive if everything I say has already been said.
The UN decided to give the Jews a country in the middle east. The Palestinians were pushed out of that country = Unfair.
Yes, unfair but it's almost 70 years ago.
The situation is that Israel exists now within certain boarders that have been defined by treaties and war (as pretty much all boarders, and no, I don't consider the Jewish settlements in the West Jordan land as part of Israel and they should be removed ASAP).
It is their country now so why shouldn't they immigrate to it? What does it change that they immigrate to their own country? What exactly is the problem as long as they stay within their own boarders (as I said the settlements are illegal in my books)?
I'm not pro Israel in any way, I just try to deal with the realities that we have today and that can hardly be changed without causing plenty of suffering again.
I think Israel did the right thing with the flotilla!
I think Israel does the wrong thing with the settlements!

How come that many members of this forum find it all to well if foreigners (Jews) come from all over the place to claim Palestine as their own, while they angrily cry out loud if foreigners (Muslims) come to live in Western Europe?
It's exactly the same.
It is not.
The comparison between immigration to Israel and Islamic immigration to Europe doesn't fit. Israel is a Jewish country and has been for 70 years. Europe (at least most of it) is not Islamic but plenty of Muslims are immigrating to it and form parallel societies.
I never said that the creation of Israel was fair, but we have to live with the fact that it is there.



And now don't start the "Muslims are inferior to Christians/Jews, and they want to take over western society" game. Even if it's true, it doesn't matter.First of all I wouldn't call it a game and second it really doesn't matter.
Israel exists!!! A Islamic Europe does not (yet)!
So again. The Jews are immigrating to their own country while the Muslims don't.
If you consider Israel to be a mistake then this mistake should have been corrected 70 years ago. It is now too late and Israel can't simply be removed. So all parties involved have to deal with this situation and Hamas chose war. Why should I deny the citizens of a country that has existed for 70 years the right to defend themselves?
I also grant the Palestinians the right to defend themselves against the settlements on their soil.
I would like to see that every side stays within it's own boarders and leaves the other side alone.

[OneToughHerring]

And just because say, Yugoslavia was a single country for decades means it should stay like that forever.

Oh, wait...

[Safe-Keeper]

How come that many members of this forum find it all to well if foreigners (Jews) come from all over the place to claim Palestine as their own, while they angrily cry out loud if foreigners (Muslims) come to live in Western Europe?
It's exactly the same.:rotfl2:

Yeah, the situation in Norway is just about identical to the one in Israel and Palestine. Except from the suicide bombers, checkpoints, naval blockade, missiles fired into West European cities, thousand-year old religious conflict, gunship patrols, mosques built on sacred Western European sites (though come to think of it, that would be cool, the Muslims building a huge mosque in Vatican City:D), and settlements.

That is an idea Steve! In an effort to make a more unified and harmonious world I propose we revert all Eurasian national boarders to their pre-1500AD lines. The following changes will be made:
The PRC, Iran, Afghanistan, half of Iraq, half of Turkey, North and South Korea, Kashmir, southern Siberia, all of Russia south and east of Moscow will be given to Mongolia.
Then I want all the Viking colonies and settlements back. Let's start with Britain!

[OneToughHerring]

:rotfl2:

Yeah, the situation in Norway is just about identical to the one in Israel and Palestine. Except from the suicide bombers, checkpoints, naval blockade, missiles fired into West European cities, thousand-year old religious conflict, gunship patrols, mosques built on sacred Western European sites (though come to think of it, that would be cool, the Muslims building a huge mosque in Vatican City:D), and settlements.

There already is a mosque (temple) in Vatican, it's for worshipping an Abrahamic deity (god, allah, j-a, etc.).

[DarkFish]

The UN decided to give the Jews a country in the middle east. The Palestinians were pushed out of that country = Unfair.
Yes, unfair but it's almost 70 years ago.But the Palestinians did never give up the fight and surrender to Israelian rule, did they? As long as they don't accept Israelians as their superiors, and keep on fighting, the conflict is contemporary - no matter when it started.

The situation is that Israel exists now within certain boarders that have been defined by treaties and war (as pretty much all boarders, and no, I don't consider the Jewish settlements in the West Jordan land as part of Israel and they should be removed ASAP).
It is their country now so why shouldn't they immigrate to it? What does it change that they immigrate to their own country? What exactly is the problem as long as they stay within their own boarders (as I said the settlements are illegal in my books)?It shouldn't be their country. They stole it from the Palestinians.

It is not.
The comparison between immigration to Israel and Islamic immigration to Europe doesn't fit. Israel is a Jewish country and has been for 70 years. Europe (at least most of it) is not Islamic but plenty of Muslims are immigrating to it and form parallel societies.I was talking about 60 years ago (it's only 62, not 70;)). During that period as there weren't so many Jews living there, the comparison does fit perfectly.

First of all I wouldn't call it a game and second it really doesn't matter....which is literally what I said;)

Israel exists!!! A Islamic Europe does not (yet)!
So again. The Jews are immigrating to their own country while the Muslims don't.So if the Muslims come to Europe and claim it as their own, it's okay for more Muslims to come here since it's their country anyway?

If you consider Israel to be a mistake then this mistake should have been corrected 70 years ago. It is now too late and Israel can't simply be removed.agreed:yep:
But something has to be done nonetheless.

So all parties involved have to deal with this situation and Hamas chose war. Why should I deny the citizens of a country that has existed for 70 years the right to defend themselves?And why should you deny Hamas the right to defend themselves against the invaders that have been occupying their country for 70 years?

[VonHesse]

Why stop with 1948? If the land should be "given back", why not reinstate the Ottoman Empire and give it all back to the Turks? Why not go back to Alexander and give it all back to the Greeks? Or the Italians?

or the Canaanites. :03:

[MH]

agreed:yep:
But something has to be done nonetheless.


Something:rock:
Something like what?

Hey why don't we just start a brain storm contest on how to solve the conflict instead of digging to biblical times.

Anything allowed from exterminate the evil Jew to exterminate the Arab.

[DarkFish]

Then I want all the Viking colonies and settlements back. Let's start with Britain!In that case, as a descendant of the Frankish Sallii and Chamavii, I hereby claim France, Belgium, northern Italy, Switzerland and Austria.I demand the governments of here mentioned countries to immediately transfer power to me and my fellow Franks. Any refusal to comply shall be met with heavy consequences:stare:

[Sailor Steve]

Common man... just drink you beer and play your guitar...
Not much of an answer. Do you have anything real to say, or just insults?

All the people who claim the Jews came in and "conquered" Palistine miss the point that the entire area did belong to the Turks until they sided with the Germans in the First World War.

As to any Arab claims to the area, I suggest you read all of this.
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11607

[MH]

Not much of an answer. Do you have anything real to say, or just insults?

All the people who claim the Jews came in and "conquered" Palistine miss the point that the entire area did belong to the Turks until they sided with the Germans in the First World War.

As to any Arab claims to the area, I suggest you read all of this.
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11607

Did not mean to insult you.
Did i insult anyone else besides OTH?

Your argument seemed pointless to me-hope i don't insult you by answering this way.

Now i understand....

[Safe-Keeper]

So if the Muslims come to Europe and claim it as their own, it's okay for more Muslims to come here since it's their country anyway?Er... no. As a matter of fact, I don't see how you can make that comparison.

I was talking about 60 years ago (it's only 62, not 70;)). During that period as there weren't so many Jews living there, the comparison does fit perfectly.1940: an extermination program is started in some country under a Nazi dictatorship. Six million Pakistanis are killed in various gruesome ways. This understandably tugs at heartstrings, so the UN decides to give Oslo to the Pakistanis and Vietnamese, this in part because it is the place in the world they identify with the most, because it was their land 2000 years ago, and because their old Holy City was located in downtown Oslo. In fact, the Tiger City is where the greatest mosque of all times was built, before the Norwegians razed it and built the royal palace in its place.

Also considered in the decision was the fact that in 1945, Oslo already contained lots of Pakistanis, who fought valiantly against both the Norwegians and the British regime ruling Norway. The decision to give the Pakistanis, a people without a homeland to call their own, Oslo and the surrounding counties as their nation was a matter of practicality both in terms of military and demographics, a means of settling years and years of violence and giving the Pakistanis their nation in the lands where there already lived a lot of them. Where else, thought, the UN, should Pakistan have its home than in the city given to them by God, as described in the Qur'an (things were looking pretty ugly for little Aisha for a second, before that angel descended and said the order to Muhammed to kill her as a burnt offering was just a test of faith:o)?

Unfortunately, the Nordic peoples did not agree with the decision, and once founded, Oslostan was instantly invaded by Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, the Faeroes and the Samis, but in part thanks to American aid, Oslostan has so far beaten back every attack:up:.

Behold the flag of Oslostan, complete with the Prophet Muhammed.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r292/safe-keeper/th_Oslostan.jpg?t=1276368146


Yeah, fits perfectly. Except, um, every single detail:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:.

And why should you deny Hamas the right to defend themselves against the invaders that have been occupying their country for 70 years?HAMAS doesn't "defend itself". We're not talking French World War II saboteurs here, we're talking about a regime, and thus nation, with a sworn mission to destroy the entirety of Israel. It's akin to the Soviet Union taking over half of Europe under the guise of "fighting facism".

You don't "defend yourself" against a nation by firing thousands of missiles a year into its cities, or by teaching children to hate its inhabitans, or by sending people into their markets to blow themselves up. Would you have supported Allied resistance fighters doing the same thing during WWII? Would you support Tibetans firing RPG-7s into Chinese cities?

Please think before you post.

[Platapus]

Maybe the United Nations can just take a mulligan on the whole thing. Kick everyone out and give the land to someone else... like the gays and lesbians for instance. :D

We can keep all the hot lesbians here for the porn industry, but we can ship all the gays and the ugly lesbians to their new promised land. :up: Legalized marriage? No problem, it is your country. :D

Jus tryin to think out of the box here. :har::haha:

(this thread was getting a bit too tightly wound up) :|\\

[Safe-Keeper]

The gays can have Iran. Just make sure all the parks are within view of Imadinnerjacket's palace, so he can enjoy the sight of lesbians walking hand in hand from his bedroom.

[DarkFish]

Something:rock:
Something like what?

Hey why don't we just start a brain storm contest on how to solve the conflict instead of digging to biblical times.

Anything allowed from exterminate the evil Jew to exterminate the Arab.I say nuke 'em both:D
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/star4ucker/nukes.jpg


Now seriously, you say it's impossible to have a combined Palestine-Israeli state. That may be, in that case I'd say give a huge portion of Israel back to the Palestines.
Some searching on wikipedia suggests there are about 6.000.000 Jews living in Israel (+Gaza+West Bank), and about 5.000.000 Palestinians. I'd say the Palestinians should thus be given at least 45% of the Israelian territory.

[Bilge_Rat]

Now seriously, you say it's impossible to have a combined Palestine-Israeli state. That may be, in that case I'd say give a huge portion of Israel back to the Palestines.
Some searching on wikipedia suggests there are about 6.000.000 Jews living in Israel (+Gaza+West Bank), and about 5.000.000 Palestinians. I'd say the Palestinians should thus be given at least 45% of the Israelian territory.


Why not just give them 45% of the Netherlands or Finland, if you are so generous.


:rotfl2: :rotfl2: :rotfl2: :rotfl2:

MH, chill bro, no one here is interested in a real debate. Its the sabbath (well it is here), kick back and have a cold one.

:cool:

[MH]

Why not just give them 45% of the Netherlands or Finland, if you are so generous.


:cool:


I would prefer 45% of Netherlands given to Jews
Some part of Finland would be nice to chill out.:up:
They got good evil metal bands there.

[DarkFish]

So if the Muslims come to Europe and claim it as their own, it's okay for more Muslims to come here since it's their country anyway? Er... no. As a matter of fact, I don't see how you can make that comparison.well, because you say that because the Jews came to Palestine and claimed it as their own, it's okay for more Jews to come there since it's their country anyway.

1940: an extermination program is started in some country under a Nazi dictatorship. Six million Pakistanis are killed in various gruesome ways. [...] the UN decides to give Oslo to the Pakistanis and Vietnamese, this in part because it is the place in the world they identify with the most, because it was their land 2000 years ago, and because their old Holy City was located in downtown Oslo. [...]

Also considered in the decision was the fact that in 1945, Oslo already contained lots of Pakistanis, who fought valiantly against both the Norwegians and the British regime ruling Norway. The decision to give the Pakistanis, a people without a homeland to call their own, Oslo and the surrounding counties as their nation was a matter of practicality both in terms of military and demographics, a means of settling years and years of violence and giving the Pakistanis their nation in the lands where there already lived a lot of them. Where else, thought, the UN, should Pakistan have its home than in the city given to them by God, as described in the Qur'an [...]?

Unfortunately, the Nordic peoples did not agree with the decision, and once founded, Oslostan was instantly invaded by Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, the Faeroes and the Samis, but in part thanks to American aid, Oslostan has so far beaten back every attack:up:.Except for the Pakistanis were not given Oslo, but the whole of Norway, and except for originally there actually weren't so many Pakistanis living in Oslo. In 1850 only 4%.

HAMAS doesn't "defend itself". We're not talking French World War II saboteurs here, we're talking about a regime, and thus nation, with a sworn mission to destroy the entirety of Israel. It's akin to the Soviet Union taking over half of Europe under the guise of "fighting facism".

You don't "defend yourself" against a nation by firing thousands of missiles a year into its cities, or by teaching children to hate its inhabitans, or by sending people into their markets to blow themselves up.Civilians are part of the conquering force as well. Conquerors are not just the soldiers that kill the defenders, but the civilians that occupy the country in name of the conqueror as well.

It's not a nice way of defending ones country, killing the invading civilians, but it's defending ones country nonetheless.

Would you have supported Allied resistance fighters doing the same thing during WWII? Would you support Tibetans firing RPG-7s into Chinese cities?I wouldn't support the killings, but I would support the Allied/Tibetan resistance nonetheless.
I don't support the way in which Hamas defends Palestine (by killing civilians), but I certainly support Hamas itself.

Please think before you post.Or rather you should read before you post. Where did I say that I agree with the *way* in which Hamas is defending Palestine?

Why not just give them 45% of the Netherlands or Finland, if you are so generous.Oh, they can have all of Finland:D

The thing is, the Netherlands or Finland never invaded Palestine. I hope it wasn't a serious question as to which country should cede their lands.

[Oberon]

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/129202606447624137.jpg

[Safe-Keeper]

Why not just give them 45% of the Netherlands or Finland, if you are so generous.

:rotfl2: :rotfl2: :rotfl2: :rotfl2:

MH, chill bro, no one here is interested in a real debate. Its the sabbath (well it is here), kick back and have a cold one.

:cool:The Finns are used to giving territory to other nations, so they probably won't even notice it if we take some more:D.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r292/safe-keeper/Finnish_Partition.jpg

:looks around nervously for angry ferrets:

well, because you say that because the Jews came to Palestine and claimed it as their own, it's okay for more Jews to come there since it's their country anyway.That's basically the gist of it, yes. When people receive a nation, and this nation is recognized, you have a right to migrate there.

Except for the Pakistanis were not given Oslo, but the whole of Norway, and except for originally there actually weren't so many Pakistanis living in Oslo. In 1850 only 4%.We agree, then -- the situations are vastly different, and shouldn't be compared:up:.

Civilians are part of the conquering force as well. Conquerors are not just the soldiers that kill the defenders, but the civilians that occupy the country in name of the conqueror as well.Except no one is getting conquered, but rather was given sovereignity over part of the land they inhabited. If the UN gave Kurdistan to the Kurds, or Tibet to the Tibetans, would you consider that conquest as well?

It's not a nice way of defending ones country, killing the invading civilians, but it's defending ones country nonetheless.

I wouldn't support the killings, but I would support the Allied/Tibetan resistance nonetheless.
I don't support the way in which Hamas defends Palestine (by killing civilians), but I certainly support Hamas itself.Wow. Just... wow. You just lost all respect in my eyes.

DarkFish, working hard, through terrorism and deliberate killing of innocents, to wipe another country off the map is not "defending your country", it's aggression and conquest. Attacking neighbouring nations' citizens because you claim they present a cultural threat to you (which Israel in no way does to Palestine) wasn't a valid way to do politics when the Germans did it in 1940, nor is it valid today.

Or rather you should read before you post. Where did I say that I agree with the *way* in which Hamas is defending Palestine?
Typically, supporting someone means supporting them. "Oh, but I do support vegetarianism, I just don't agree with the whole not-eating-meat deal":damn:.

The thing is, the Netherlands or Finland never invaded Palestine.The thing is, Israel never invaded Palestine either. An invasion involves armed personnel crossing a border to take a country by force. The British abandoning a colony, leaving each of the colony's two ethnic groups in charge of a fraction each, is not an invasion by any meaning of the word. Perhaps if "exvasion" is a word, it'd fit, but according to my spell checker that doesn't seem to be the case.

I suppose the Brits should have pulled out without splitting Palestine in two. Because, you know, that usually works out so well for everyone, look at how well the Hutus treated the Tutsis in Rwanda...

I hope it wasn't a serious question as to which country should cede their lands.If you need it spelled out to you: no, it wasn't.

[OneToughHerring]

we're talking about a regime, and thus nation

Oh really? :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

The Finns are used to giving territory to other nations, so they probably won't even notice it if we take some more:D.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r292/safe-keeper/Finnish_Partition.jpg

:looks around nervously for angry ferrets:

That's basically the gist of it, yes. When people receive a nation, and this nation is recognized, you have a right to migrate there.

We agree, then -- the situations are vastly different, and shouldn't be compared:up:.

Except no one is getting conquered, but rather was given sovereignity over part of the land they inhabited. If the UN gave Kurdistan to the Kurds, or Tibet to the Tibetans, would you consider that conquest as well?

Wow. Just... wow. You just lost all respect in my eyes.

DarkFish, working hard, through terrorism and deliberate killing of innocents, to wipe another country off the map is not "defending your country", it's aggression and conquest. Attacking neighbouring nations' citizens because you claim they present a cultural threat to you (which Israel in no way does to Palestine) wasn't a valid way to do politics when the Germans did it in 1940, nor is it valid today.

Typically, supporting someone means supporting them. "Oh, but I do support vegetarianism, I just don't agree with the whole not-eating-meat deal":damn:.

The thing is, Israel never invaded Palestine either. An invasion involves armed personnel crossing a border to take a country by force. The British abandoning a colony, leaving each of the colony's two ethnic groups in charge of a fraction each, is not an invasion by any meaning of the word. Perhaps if "exvasion" is a word, it'd fit, but according to my spell checker that doesn't seem to be the case.

I suppose the Brits should have pulled out without splitting Palestine in two. Because, you know, that usually works out so well for everyone, look at how well the Hutus treated the Tutsis in Rwanda...

If you need it spelled out to you: no, it wasn't.

Dowly is one of only a few sensible Finns here IMO....it's the ITG.....the youngster who is looking/or possibly fearing conscription in the near future or IMO the individual who can't agree with anyone and is little more than a conscientious objector to what his country support (all 100+ of them) have signed up to who you should ignore.
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9652/wizardbehindcurtain.jpg

[DarkFish]

So if the Muslims come to Europe and claim it as their own, it's okay for more Muslims to come here since it's their country anyway? Er... no. As a matter of fact, I don't see how you can make that comparison.well, because you say that because the Jews came to Palestine and claimed it as their own, it's okay for more Jews to come there since it's their country anyway.That's basically the gist of it, yes. When people receive a nation, and this nation is recognized, you have a right to migrate there.then how the hell do you not see how I can make that comparison? Both phrases are LITERALLY the same, only the words "Muslim" and "Europe" have been changed into "Jews" and "Palestine". But somehow the first one is not okay, while the second one is perfectly all right:doh:

We agree, then -- the situations are vastly different, and shouldn't be compared:up:.In a slightly edited form, the situations would be amazingly similar and thus would make for a good comparison.

Except no one is getting conquered, but rather was given sovereignity over part of the land they inhabited. If the UN gave Kurdistan to the Kurds, or Tibet to the Tibetans, would you consider that conquest as well?Except for that the vast majority of the Israelians didn't inhabit Palestine in the first place. So instead of comparing it with "giving Kurdistan to the Kurds", you'd better compare it with "giving Norway to the Pakistanis". I would consider that conquest.

DarkFish, working hard to wipe another country off the map is not "defending your country", it's aggression and conquest. Attacking neighbouring nations' citizens because you claim they present a cultural threat to you (which Israel in no way does to Palestine) wasn't a valid way to do politics when the Germans did it in 1940, nor is it valid today.You make one big mistake here. You see it as a conflict between two different nations. While in fact it's only one (former) nation. It's the occupied working hard to wipe the occupiers off the map. And that is exactly what "defending ones country" is: attempting to drive out the invaders.

through terrorism and deliberate killing of innocentsI cannot deny Hamas uses terrorism, and deliberately kills innocents. And I do definitely not support that. But IMO they do have the right to defend themselves against the Israelis (by conquering back the territory that was taken from them).

Typically, supporting someone means supporting them. "Oh, but I do support vegetarianism, I just don't agree with the whole not-eating-meat deal":damn:.That comparison doesn't go. Not eating meat is essential for being vegetarian, so you cannot support one and not support the other.

You might compare it to e.g. anti-animal testing action groups. While some do it peacefully, others (Hamas) take a more aggressive stance and try to destroy the laboratories and free the test subjects.
In this comparison, if I were against animal testing I would support the goals of both groups (since they are the same). But I would not support the way in which the second group tries to achieve those goals.

Similarly, I do support the goals of Hamas, while I do not support Hamas' actions.

[Oberon]

Dowly? Sensible? When did that happen? :O:

jk ferret, I loves ya really :03:

[Sailor Steve]

Did not mean to insult you.
I took it as a dismissal, as in I thought I had a point and you told me to go play with myself. I don't really get insulted so much as I like to reply in kind. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again; I just like to talk about it honestly.

No hard feelings. We said our piece, and we can make our peace, but let's get back to the fight! :D

[Sailor Steve]

Then I want all the Viking colonies and settlements back. Let's start with Britain!
Sorry, the Germans invaded first.

Except for the part where they didn't come along until the Romans left (not them again!)

Either Britain belongs to the Angles and the Jutes (waitaminute) or the whole world belongs to the Italians.

I'm not sure which.

[DarkFish]

Either Britain belongs to the Angles and the Jutes (waitaminute) or the whole world belongs to the Italians.Well certainly not the whole world - the Germanics didn't let themselves be conquered:D

[MH]

Here is a article about how Palestinian Authority (Fatah )view the last developments in Gaza.
Fatah has the authority in West Bank-they are not crazy religious fanatics as hammas is.


http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=177779

[Tribesman]

MH. viewing your reply do you really want to open that can of worms?Seriously it would be a favour as both sides are so full of crap which they accapt as fundamentalist truthsthat even truth is supplanted for idiots to feed upon

[MH]

.....even truth is supplanted for idiots to feed upon

Good one...:up:

[Tribesman]

Good one...
Seriously, look at the topics and the words

[Happy Times]

Anyone thinking that if Israel would cease to exist would stop conflict between Muslims and the West is naive.
We are in a continuum of conflict that started when the Muhammed started his expansionist ideology.
Any reformations or one sided concessions from our side wont make any difference.

If we refuse to see the scale of things from historical perspective is a mistake.
Any lines drawn or treaties signed would be respected only by us, exploited by them.

[Tribesman]

Any lines drawn or treaties signed would be respected only by us, exploited by them.
Is that "us" you refer to the culturally superior "white" nordic people of racial and cultural purity you frequently refer to who avoid cross breeding with inferiors?

Oh sorry Happy Times , you had something to say:hmmm:

[Safe-Keeper]

Speaking of graphics, I almost forgot this!

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r292/safe-keeper/International_Law_Flowchart.jpg?t=1276394903

:D

Is that "us" you refer to the culturally superior "white" nordic people of racial and cultural purity you frequently refer to who avoid cross breeding with inferiors?We won't be around for much longer, Norway, at least, is currently being invaded by Vietnam and Pakistan. Apparently.

[Tribesman]

We won't be around for much longer, Norway, at least, is currently being invaded by Vietnam and Pakistan. Apparently.
Yeah and we is being invaded by Poland and Nigeria apparently...plus a few scots gits from Glasgae

[Happy Times]

Is that "us" you refer to the culturally superior "white" nordic people of racial and cultural purity you frequently refer to who avoid cross breeding with inferiors?

Oh sorry Happy Times , you had something to say:hmmm:

I referred to Europe, Americas, Australia etc. and that has nation states and others based on immigration.

Finland is a nation state that has the right to control what numbers and from where it takes people in.

There should be a points system established in immigration based on our needs, good fair system and i wont care who comes trough it.

My personal observation who seem to do well are other Europeans and East Asians.

[Tribesman]

I referred to Europe, Americas, Australia etc. and that has nation states and others based on immigration.

Finland is a nation state that has the right to control what numbers and from where it takes people in.

Price of cheese again isn't it.
You repeatedly refer to white nordic poeple and the superiority of the culture and purity of race.
If you are unable to stand up in front of the views you have stated as your own then it speaks volumes about your views.
You have publicly dug your own grave, and unlike many of the victims of the shoah you did it freely yourself, you wasn't forced to dig it under the guns of others who had irrational prejudices and hatred.

[Happy Times]

Price of cheese again isn't it.
You repeatedly refer to white nordic poeple and the superiority of the culture and purity of race.
If you are unable to stand up in front of the views you have stated as your own then it speaks volumes about your views.
You have publicly dug your own grave, and unlike many of the victims of the shoah you did it freely yourself, you wasn't forced to dig it under the guns of others who had irrational prejudices and hatred.

You know i dont really care about your opinion or what you interpret, i find you more than just a useful idiot.

[Tribesman]

You know i dont really care about your opinion or what you interpret,
It doesn't really matter between us how I interpret things does it, so we are on the same page there.
However ranting about "white" nordic superiority and racial purity might colour other peoples views of you Happy.
If you wish to believe that your talk of white nordic superiority can be taken any other way then fair play to ya, you deserve a prize

[Happy Times]

It doesn't really matter between us how I interpret things does it, so we are on the same page there.
However ranting about "white" nordic superiority and racial purity might colour other peoples views of you Happy.
If you wish to believe that your talk of white nordic superiority can be taken any other way then fair play to ya, you deserve a prize

You have some inferiority complex?

[Safe-Keeper]

You repeatedly refer to white nordic poeple and the superiority of the culture and purity of race.I'm sceptical. Where, exactly, does he say this? You got a link?

Also, I find "Nordic people" to be misleading, as if there was just one ethnic group in all of North Europe.

[VonHesse]

Two unrelated, but somewhat relevant stories in the news today...

"Riyadh opens air space for run on nuke facilities, paper says"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37653040/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/


LONDON - Saudi Arabia will allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran's nuclear facilities, the London Times reported on Saturday.

"The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way," said a U.S. defense source in the Persian Gulf area told the Times. "They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department."

Sources in Saudi Arabia said it is common knowledge within kingdom defense circles that an arrangement is in place if Israel decides to launch the raid, the Times said. Despite the tension between the two governments, they share a mutual loathing of the regime in Tehran and a common fear of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

"We all know this. We will let them [the Israelis] through and see nothing," a Saudi source told the Times.


and...

"Alleged Mossad spy arrested in hit-squad case"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37655629/ns/world_news-europe/


BERLIN - An alleged Mossad spy from Israel wanted in connection with the hit-squad slaying of a Hamas agent in Dubai has been arrested in Poland, officials said Saturday.

The man, using the name Uri Brodsky, is suspected of working for Mossad in Germany and helping to issue a fake German passport to a member of the Mossad operation that allegedly killed Hamas agent Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai in January, a spokesman for the German federal prosecutor's office told The Associated Press.

Brodsky was arrested in early June upon his arrival in Poland because of a European arrest warrant issued by Germany which is now seeking his extradition, the spokesman said, declining to be named in line with department policy.

In Israel, the Foreign Ministry said without elaborating that it was aware of the man's fate. "At the moment, we're looking into that like any other Israeli who has been arrested, and he's getting consular treatment," spokesman Andy David said.



Interesting, no? And on topic... at least somewhat.

More so than rants about Nordic supremacy vs. the Pakistani horde. :rotfl2:

Ok, I'll shut up now.

[Tribesman]

Yes it is true...there are lots of reason to that besides "chosen people" crap.
One of those reason is that we don't want to be overrun by masses of Arabs who find life much more attractive in Israel than in their own countries.
Which bring us to ...demographics

So its true, yet you claimed there was equality.
Demographics, thats a nice word. So demographjics in this situation and back to the founding of the state has been to take a minority in an area, ensure by one method or another that the minority somehow become a majority and then spend decades ensuring that the minority remains a majority.
Actually on a demographic theme, can you give me some idea what the demographic situation is regarding birth rates with all the various flavours of Jewish Israelis and the fundamentalist super orthodox Israelis?

I'm sceptical. Where, exactly, does he say this? You got a link?

Its cross referencing from the story of patriotism and perversion of europe topics.

[Bilge_Rat]

Speaking of graphics, I almost forgot this!

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r292/safe-keeper/International_Law_Flowchart.jpg?t=1276394903

:D



Good one and so true.

:rotfl2:

A North Korean border guard shot 4 unarmed chinese national for no apparent reason last week. I guess it does not warrant a thread because no Israelis are involved. :cool:

[Bilge_Rat]

So its true, yet you claimed there was equality.
Demographics, thats a nice word. So demographjics in this situation and back to the founding of the state has been to take a minority in an area, ensure by one method or another that the minority somehow become a majority and then spend decades ensuring that the minority remains a majority.

Err yah, whatever....

In 48, Israel was attacked by palestinian arabs and invaded by the armies of 4 Arab states, all of which wanted to destroy Israel. Israel acted in self-defence, used military means to win the war. Since then, it has been waiting to negotiate a comprehensive peace. It has decisively won 4 wars, yet if a comprehensive peace plan is ever achieved, it will go back to basically its 49 borders, which is more generous than what any other country has ever done on earth.

It really is that simple. :cool:

[Bilge_Rat]

Two unrelated, but somewhat relevant stories in the news today...

"Riyadh opens air space for run on nuke facilities, paper says"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37653040/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/





This has been in the works for years. The IAF and USAF studied plans to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities, but the IAF has been pursuing it more seriously, even carrying out rehearsal flights over the med. One of the stumbling blocks was the fact that IAF planes would have to overfly and station refueling planes over Turkey, Iraq or Saudi Arabia for it to work.

Interesting that the Saudis, who have been funding the war against Israel for decades have realized that Iran is actually a bigger threat.

:cool:

[Skybird]

Now, let's bring this thread to 1000 postings, and then let it die or lock it, okay? :D

[OneToughHerring]

A North Korean border guard shot 4 unarmed chinese national for no apparent reason last week. I guess it does not warrant a thread because no Israelis are involved. :cool:

Hmm, I wonder if Israel would really like LESS coverage. Wouldn't that kind of put the thing in complete darkness. Even the Jewish holocaust happened in 'media darkness'. The Far-East and it's people are valued less in the eyes of the western media then, say, Israelis.

[Tribesman]

In 48, Israel was attacked by palestinian arabs and invaded by the armies of 4 Arab states, all of which wanted to destroy Israel.
Did they really? I could have sworn that the Legions only mission was to grab as much of the land allocated to the arab state as it could while not invading any land allocated to the Jewish State. Which is a very strange move for an army you say was dedicated to destroying Israel.

[MH]

So its true, yet you claimed there was equality.
.

There is an equality and there is also reality WITH equality.
Cant you see the catch 22 situation here.
We have a democratic coutry in which every citizen has a free right to vote.... the idea of Israel is to be an Jewish state-legit one i think.
We did not threw out Palestynians from our coutry after 48(we could but it would be unmoral treat palestynians stalin style)
Who ever stayed within 48 borders became an Israeli citizen who has a democratic rights.
At the same time we are talking about Palestynian state side by side with Israel. Returning of refugees to within our 48 borders and letting any one marring any one to become an Israeli citizen.
Don't you think that if Israel went along those noble ways world would end up with two Palestinian states side by side.
It kind of misses the point of it all .

When you add to this situation a fact that middle east is not Europe.
French can mix with Germans (at list for now)with out altering their way of life since both have western mentality and share similar values.
Its not possible with middle eastern Arabs and Israelis-there is no tradition of democracy within their countries.
Most of them are ruled by force and oppression.
In many cases they hate what west represents and about how human is supposed to be treated or behave.
It just cant work to benefit Jews and Palestynian at the same time.
Israel wants to preserve western life style besides the fact that its suposed to be a Jewish state.


I hope i explained my self clearly here.


demographics....lite

Typical atheist or tradition keeping Jewish family 2-3 and cat/dog.

Muslim palestynian->lots of children by tradition ->lots of money from state because israeli goverment encurages high birth rate and rewards Jews and Palestynians equally.

Orthodox Jews->look above.
(orthodox Jews are smaller group than Israeli Palestinians)

If you want reall numbers with statistics just goggle i cant be bothered.

[OneToughHerring]

The Economist: Who will sit in judgment?

http://www.economist.com/node/16333379?story_id=16333379


Who will sit in judgment?The politics and diplomacy of the inquiry into last week’s deaths of nine Turkish activists

THE Israeli government is haggling with the United States and Europe over the terms and composition of a commission of inquiry that it proposes to set up to investigate its lethal storming on May 31st of a Turkish ship bringing aid to Gaza. At the same time, in close co-ordination with Egypt, Israel is offering to ease the blockade of Gaza, drastically reducing the list of goods it refuses to let into the territory.
These measures, the Israeli government believes, may stem the wave of international opprobrium that swept over the Jewish state following the ship incident, in which nine Turkish civilians died. The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has told his ministers and senior officials to refrain from any public response to the blistering verbal attacks being made by Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and members of his government. The two countries, close allies for many years, still have important defence ties that Israel hopes to preserve despite the present crisis.
The Israeli army has already commissioned its own internal inquiry, headed by a retired general, Giora Eiland. Although public opinion at home largely rallied behind the armed forces, many Israelis have criticised the failure to anticipate violent resistance aboard the Mavi Marmara, the largest vessel in a six-ship flotilla carrying peace campaigners and pro-Palestinian activists. Israeli commandos dropped from helicopters, firing paintballs, and were apparently set upon by activists wielding clubs and knives. According to the Israelis, this forced the commandos to open fire.
Mr Netanyahu has suggested that an inquiry commission comprising Israeli experts in international law could be joined by American and European observers. The prime minister and his minister of defence, Ehud Barak, would appear before this commission and answer its questions.
His own suggested nominees, however, were two retired diplomats, one with outspoken right-wing views, and a professor of international law who is angling to be appointed—with Mr Netanyahu’s approval—as Israel’s ambassador to the UN. The Israeli prime minister also made it clear that serving soldiers and officers would not be allowed to give evidence before the commission. It would rely on the findings of the army’s inquiry board.
The commission’s ambit, in Mr Netanyahu’s blueprint, would also focus purely on whether the blockade of Gaza and the seizure of the peace flotilla were legal. The broader questions of the wisdom and morality of the assault would be beyond its mandate. The Americans reportedly want more international participation on the commission and a heavier-weight Israeli to chair it to give it greater credibility.
But both Israel and America want to avoid a repeat of the controversial UN report issued in September by Richard Goldstone, a South African judge, which accused Israel and Hamas, the Islamist group that runs the Gaza Strip, of war crimes during Israel’s three-week attack on Gaza which began in December 2008. On June 2nd the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council, which initiated the Goldstone inquiry, voted “to dispatch an independent international fact-finding mission to investigate violations of international law, including international humanitarian aid and human rights law”. But the council has a long history of criticising Israel and America and several European countries opposed the resolution.
Israel, meanwhile, has remained notably silent about Egypt’s decision last week to open the crossing between Gaza and Sinai at Rafah and its follow-up announcement on June 7th that the border would remain open indefinitely. The blockade of the Gaza Strip, which has been in place since Hamas took power in 2007, has been enforced by Israel and Egypt, acting separately, with the initial endorsement of America and the European Union.
A busy network of tunnels running under Rafah has, in any event, made a mockery of the Egyptian effort. But Egypt has been building an iron barrier, sunk deep into the sandy soil, to thwart this subterranean traffic. It is supposed to be finished by August. Israel for its part has been praising Egypt of late for the meticulous nature of its measures to ensure that missiles and other weapons do not flow into the strip.
Although Israel indicates that it will now substantially ease the flow of goods across its own land-crossings into Gaza, its officials say there will be no let-up in the sea blockade. One ship, they explain, can bring in more weapons than a fleet of lorries with hidden military hardware.Quoting Skybird-style. :)

Edit. Israel names head of commission for flotilla inquiry

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/13/israel.flotilla.inquiry/index.html?hpt=T1

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/WORLD/meast/06/13/israel.flotilla.inquiry/story.flotilla.inquiry.gi.jpg

[SteamWake]

Iran gets into the act just to stir things up...


TEHRAN, June 14 (Reuters) - Iran is sending aid ships to blockaded Gaza, state radio said on Monday -- a move likely to be considered provocative by Israel which accuses Tehran of arming the Palestinian enclave's Islamist rulers, Hamas.


One ship left port on Sunday and another will depart by Friday, loaded with food, construction material and toys, the report said. The boats would be part of international efforts to break Israel's isolation of the Gaza Strip.


"Until the end of the Gaza blockade, Iran will continue to ship aid," said an official at Iran's Society for the Defence of the Palestinian Nation.


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE65D0HG.htm

[Skybird]

Diplomatic manouvers.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7149819.ece

Mr Blair added: “I hope that...while Israel will maintain the blockade in respect of weapons and combat material coming into Gaza, we change the situation so that those goods that are necessary for ordinary civilian life are brought into Gaza as a matter of course.

“In other words, we change from the so-called permitted list of items where things only come in if they on that list, to the prohibited list where goods come in unless they are on that list. This is a significant change.”

One EU diplomat said that, while no final decisions had been made, there were positive indications that Israel might be willing to open either the Karni or the Kerem Shalom border crossings for large-scale imports into Gaza.

The diplomat said Israel rejected a proposal for cargo to be delivered by ships checked in a third location such as Cyprus.


Sounds as if the naval blockade will stay in place, with the inspection procedures for transports on land will change a bit, as will the list of items that are allowed in.

[Skybird]

http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=178812

At least some people in Israel clearly see what is coming their way. No pleasant perspectives. Currently, several different boats, ships and flotillas are on their way to Gaza.

And now I present to you The Three Terrors, to make you all smile (or yell) again: :D

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

"Terror, terror,
that's my cup of tea!
Terror gains you love and sympathy
to beat the West, to be the one
from Tripolis to Teheran -
yalla yallah ya,
jihad is sweet, jihad is fun!"

:haha:

Yes, this is an outright propaganda song from A to Z - but there is more than just one grain of truth in it - and at least I really was made laughing.

[Tribesman]

At least some people in Israel clearly see what is coming their way.
Glick is so warped she can't see anything clearly.

[Dowly]

More wood into the fire!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gjkF-iGOvS6PQ7llAsUgCb8fmdAg

All but two of the nine Turks killed in an Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound aid ship were shot more than once, and five died from bullet wounds to the head, according to forensic reports.


:arrgh!:Yarrrr

[Schroeder]

So?

[Dowly]

So?

I don't know, I was just hoping OTH would pop-up... the gun violence thread is starting to get boring. :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

More wood into the fire!

All but two of the nine Turks killed in an Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound aid ship were shot more than once, and five died from bullet wounds to the head, according to forensic reports.


:arrgh!:Yarrrr

They made sure they were definitely neutralised then :yep:

I don't know, I was just hoping OTH would pop-up... the gun violence thread is starting to get boring. :hmmm:

LOL :DL

[Skybird]

Good training pays often even under such nasty circumstances. Amateurs would maybe have panicked and bangbang holes into the air like a drunk triggerhappy on dope.

Does anyone expect such troops and commandos to not shoot with aim when they are finding themselves in a situation where they fight for their lives while being outnumbered and situation around is chaotic and landing zone is hot?

[MH]

I don't know, I was just hoping OTH would pop-up... the gun violence thread is starting to get boring. :hmmm:

http://galai.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/redherring.gif

[NeonSamurai]

I'm not overly surprised, common practice when using a pistol is to double tap. Plus you could have multiple shooters on the same target

[Platapus]

I'm not overly surprised, common practice when using a pistol is to double tap. Plus you could have multiple shooters on the same target


Double tap? Bah :down:

Mozambique baby! Mozambique for the win! :D

[Skybird]

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=178812


The international stampede against Israel at the UN, the White House and throughout Europe exposed Israel’s Achilles heel. The Mavi Marmara demonstrated that on the one hand the IDF cannot enforce its blockade of Gaza without the use of force. On the other hands it taught Israel’s enemies that by forcing Israel to use force, Iran, Turkey and their allies incited a UN-EU-US lynch mob against Israel.
(...)
Hizbullah’s penchant for dispatching suicide squads is of course well known. And the IHH showed its devotion to suicide protests on the Mavi Marmara. So it is fairly clear that the passengers aboard the ships from both countries intend to force the IDF to kill them.

The intensification of the suicide protest campaign against Israel is dangerous for two reasons.

First, it is a model that can be and in all likelihood will be replicated on air and land and it can be replicated anywhere. Israel can and should expect mobs of suicide protesters marching on Gaza to force Israel to surrender control over its borders. Israel can expect mobs of suicide protesters marching on Israeli embassies and other government installations around the world in an attempt to increase its diplomatic isolation.

In the air, Israel can expect charter flights to take off from airports around the world with a few dozen kamikaze protesters who will force the IAF to shoot them down as they approach Israeli airspace.

Iran and its allies have found a weak chink in Israel’s armor. They will use it any way they can.

Israel needs to quickly develop tactics and strategies for contending with this.

THE SECOND and far more dangerous implication of Israel’s enemies’ aggressive adoption of suicide protests is that by ensuring violence will be used, they increase the chances of war.

Indeed, Iran and its allies clearly believe that suicide protests are a vehicle for initiating a fullscale war against Israel on what they view as favorable footing. According to Bahrain’s Al Wasat press service, Hussain Amir, Iran’s ambassador to Bahrain, threatened this week that, “If the [Zionist] entity dares to direct any aggressive attack [against the Iranian ships], then it is certain that [Israel] will be met by a much stronger and firm blow.”

Syrian President Bashar Assad told the BBC Wednesday that the region is moving towards war. And the Turkish government is continuing to escalate its assaults on Israel. On Thursday Turkey threatened to cut off diplomatic relations with Israel if Israel does not issue a formal apology for its takeover of the Mavi Marmara and pay restitution to the families of the terrorists killed on board the ship.
(...)
The Iranian ships are already en route, and the ships from Lebanon could appear at any moment. The mass demonstrations against Israel throughout the world and the threatened violence from the Hamas-supporting Israeli Arab leadership indicate that mobs of suicide protesters could appear anywhere with no prior warning.

Time is of the essence. No, Israel does not want another Goldstone kangaroo court. But right now, kangaroo courts are not our biggest problem.

[Tribesman]

No surprise there from Glick. She is still as crazy as ever.

[Dutch]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37423584/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

Had a feeling it was going to end this way. It's always the way it ends when people without guns try to stand up against people with guns.

Just sad really.

Oh, and the contraband worth killing over...?



:nope:

Yea but you also have to consider the smuggling of weapons and munitions that the idiot people in that part of the world continue to fight with.

When its all said and done, I think Israel is the last country I will ever claim is picking on someone or trying to bully people around.

[MH]

No surprise there from Glick. She is still as crazy as ever.

Maybe she is but its just because she thinks Middle East way.:D

One has always to watch own balls here.

[Skybird]

A babel fish bot-translation of a comment in Die Welt, putting attention on the vital and urgent necessity for Israel to boost it's blossoming relations with Idnia even more - and why that may turn Europe's current anti-semitic arrogance and america's current willingness to leave Israel more vulnerable to it's enemies into a mistake both will later regret.

German original here:
http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article8260833/Laesst-der-Westen-Israel-fallen.html

Israel sees itself of sides of western governments and media - suspended in an intensity, that had to let even criminal dictatorships be issued hardly ever over itself to unusually substantial criticism. Immediately after the bloody collision of the Israeli navy with militant per-Palestinian activists, which wanted to break through the blockade of the Gaza Strip legal after international law by the sea route to be waiting and without closer information about the background of the incident the European union requested Israel to terminate the isolation of the radical Islamic Hamas of controlled Palestinian area. Even Germany, with one-sided denouncing of Israel so far consciously reservedly, followed this demand.

The fact that the driving forces behind the action of the alleged „peace activists were “in truth militant Turkish organizations with close connections to the radical Islamic Hamas has with western politicians and media far less irritation released than the assumed „over reaction “of Israel. And the Turkish government, that let the alleged auxiliary ship break open „to Mavi Marmara “from a Turkish port from and under Turkish flag to its provocative mission, remained completely undisturbed this even expressly supported and with furious anti-Israeli slogans under-old.



Pressed by all sides, Israel announced soon thereafter a loosening of the Gaza blockade. But there may be quite good reasons. The fact that the decision came however under the public pressure of allegedly closely friendly nations must be regarded of the Hamas and their militant international supporters as triumphaler success of their spectacular PR-action - and as encouragement of their intention of driving Israel propagandistically still further into the tightness.

And with this perception they do not lie by any means completely wrongly. That large parts of the west positioned themselves in an intensified conflict situation so clearly and on one side against Israel, is the clearest indication for creeping moving of the west away from the close strategic partnership with the Jewish state. It is certainly by far not the first sign for it.



Thus the USA signed a conclusion resolution, which questions only the atomic armament of Israel in particular in May to the subsequent conference to the Non-proliferation Treaty in New York, which leaves threatening Iranian nuclear programme unmentioned against it. The USA thereby, which would have Arab states otherwise the participation in a further atomic conference refused, justified this loyalty loyalty to their allied one of many years and most faithful in the Near East, connected with a humiliating concession to the anti-Semitic and America-hostile regime in Teheran.

This readiness, which to give way - under now also still another strategic allying of the west important with Turkey incorporated itself -, shows pressure of hostile to Israel forces: The lifted out relationship with Israel does not fit the western policy any longer into the concept - it appears it rather increasingly as obstacle during the approach desired to „the Islamic world “.

The west wants to lead the fight against the Islamism no longer martially and/or believes not to be able to afford the no more - to Iraq now the indications stand on fastest possible retreat also in Afghanistan. Therefore established Islamic powers are to be annoyed in no more case, like still at times George W. Bush, - in deceitful hope, they would hold then and from own Kraft the extremism in chess.

After the new US safety doctrine the Dschihad terrorism therefore not even more is called „Islamist “, could nevertheless than offense Islam be understood, which is to be acquitted by each responsibility for the Islamist force excesses. Expressly - and falsely - of the new US administration under Barack Obama the Palestine conflict as main interference factor for the desired harmonization of the relationship to „the Muslim world “one regards. Israel, which must still defend its existence again and again with military means, is regarded and beargwöhnt thereby to no more like in former times than indispensable western Vorposten in the Near East, but increasingly as „safety problem “.

Besides the perception of the Holocaust shrinks as point of reference of an absolute moral imperative in the west, which - although by no means exclusive - justifies the special relationship with Israel. The Schoah is not valid in this western understanding „only “as a further massacre or a further genocide under others in world history, but civilized as universal indication of the absolute break with any basis living together, whose prevention must be guideline of all politics. This view is understood and divided however not everywhere in the world.

The ascent of the once so-called third world in world politics accompanies with a substantial victim competition, the development of a proper „Holocaustneids “. The European slave trade in Africa about - which century for a long time internal-African and Arab-Islamic slavery thereby very wisely -, in addition, the alleged „driving “the Palestinian out as a condition for the establishment of the State of Israel 1948 are in accordance with an ideology of the anti-colonialism, which became generally accepted already to a large extent in some UN-committees like the human right advice, in the international memory culture at least the same status as mankind crimes kept concealed as the Holocaust.

For it even terms are coined/shaped which that „the Shoah is to correspond “- „to Yovoda “for the slavery, „Nakba “for injustice at the Palestinians. The alleged „preference “of the memory at the Holocaust as an unparalleled civilization break is rated of this ideology as western aggression against the interests of the suppressed peoples - and Israel is considered thereby as State of nascent expression of this aggression. The western public threatens to give way to this new anti-Semitism, which feeds itself from the resentment against the alleged Jewish arrogance of a privileged victim role, increasingly - not least, because it is far common also under the increasing Muslim population parts in the western societies themselves.


The present dissociation from Israel is not owed from there only a temporary political ill-will between governments. It marks rather a new phase of the creeping break with the special relations of the west with the Jewish state.

The west Israel will let supposed never fall completely - that is to be hoped at least, would equal giving up Israel at its enemies nevertheless a self task of the western democracies generally speaking. With Israel finally the memory does not only connect the west to a dark past. Rather divide Israel and the west fundamental common values such as democracy, constitutional state and free-market economy. But its preferential position as strategic-moral cornerstone of western influence in the Near East will lose Israel under the pressure of new world-political constellations to a large extent in the coming years.


Bad maps thus for of Israel future - possibly the beginning of the end of the Jewish state? Not necessarily. Also Israel must adjust itself to the new international coordinate system in view of the shrinking forces of the west - and look around for possible other, at least supplementing allies. That is quite no utopian thought.

Thus Israel maintains outstanding relations, in economical, more militarily like also strategic regard - a fact, with the rising world power India already today which lets Islamist extremists suspect already a conspiracy of „hindu zionistischen Kreuzzüglern “. Israel and India have to exhibit an enormous potential at high technology development, which opens a broad field of co-operation for them. Israel is a largest supplier of Hightech weapons at India. With Israel India divides besides the consciousness of the direct threat by Islamist extremism and terrorism. India looks thereby particularly on Pakistan, has however large interest in it, the Islamist influence in entire the Near East as well as in East Africa back urge.


If India in the course of its economic ascent will expand also its politico strategic influence in these regions, Israel can only benefit and its security. Israeli-Indian co-operation offers besides an important connecting factor for a renewal of the strategic alliance between the USA and Israel. Because also the United States set on India as a long-term, evolved world-political partner, which they regard not least as counterweight to the threatening supremacy of China in Asia.

Close co-operation between India and Israel finds from there the undivided applause of the USA and makes interesting for it Israel as link the potenziellen world power India. Generally of Israel prominent position in the area of modern communication and pollution-control technologies could not only increase its economic lead over its adversaries in the region further, but it also the gate to other world regions up-push.

And Europe? Since it must fight at present rather against its political and economic fall, it could suffering-do to it sometime even once Israel in a critical situation like the current with such ultimatively demanding letting down to have treated.

[Skybird]

Today the German Bundestag has passed a resolution that demands Israel to give up the Gaza blockade, saying that "the blockade is not in Israel's security interest and does not weaken Hamas". ALL parties in the house have supported that resolution: the socialist opposition, the SED, the Green opposition, the conservatives and liberals forming the coalition that optimists still claim to be a government. In their condemnation of israel they all stand united. united they also are in their total silence on Turkey racist oputbursts and the provocating martyr-mission of the turkish flotilla.

Not that this resolution means anything.

Although I know that I will wait in vain forever, I nevertheless wait for just a single German politician to explain why German parties think they must take it upon them to lecture the Israelis about their security interests, telling them from the distance that what they do is not in their security interest, and that they should give terrorists greater room to manouver.

This haughty arrogance that tries to sell the Israelis a venomous policy, is a shame for the German parliament, and it is an act of shame for Germany to show such a hilarious ammount of bias in favour of the terrorist aggressor's side, and against the terror-victims' side who simply get mocked when issuing such a resolution. Israel is a sovereign nation, and they know much better than arrogant stupid german politicians (who since weeks and months shine with their brilliant impotence and incompetence) what works with regard to their security, and what not.

My respect and tolerance for German parliamentary democracy is almost non-existing anyway, it just is a rotten cadaver, but it has found a new low in unpleasant smell today. the governmental parties have messed up like no other german government before them in post-war German history, and the leftist opposition cries for the loss of the SED dictatorship and allows members of their party to claim in public that the StaSi was a good tool for maintaining control in the GDR and an understandable reaction to the provocation of the Western aggressors - and this bunch of idiots all together form an alliance to lecture a soverieng nation about how it should allow to get terrorised by a people that has given democratic legitimation and support to a terror organisation to govern them?

Another evidence that there is no sign of intelligent life to be found in the Bundestag.

Spit. Spit twice.

[MH]

Today the German Bundestag has passed a resolution that demands Israel to give up the Gaza blockade, saying that "the blockade is not in Israel's security interest and does not weaken Hamas". ....

What the hell...do Europeans REALLY WANT Israeli and Palestinians to kill each other?

[Penguin]

After having read most of this thread, I must admit that I am astonished about the standard of the discussion here. This is more rational and mature than most other discussions about this which I have witnessed. Most boards on relevant German (news) websites closed this topic or are overrun with idiots and end up in name-calling (not claiming that this thread is free of morons :-?).
A special thanks to the members from Turkey and Israel who gave some good insight about the state of discussion in their countries.
I don't want to flog a dead horse, so I post some new developements about the incident:
Not much new from the official side from both countries, seems like the Turkish foreign minister Davutoglu gets attacked for even having secret talks with Israel. Source: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/turkey-fm-under-fire-at-home-for-secret-talks-with-israeli-minister-1.299577

On Sunday an Israeli report about the investigation will be submitted, it will be interesting how it will turn out, Haaretz speculates it could be more critical than expected: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/idf-probe-into-gaza-flotilla-likely-to-be-more-critical-than-expected-1.299579
If it is fair and unbiased may be debatable, but the report looks critical and open, with no intention to hide mistakes being made.
So much for the claims made that Israel is a rogue state which does what it wants.

[Penguin]

What the hell...do Europeans REALLY WANT Israeli and Palestinians to kill each other?

yes, so we have some nice, unpopulated beaches in the holy land to send in our fat tourists! muhuahuahua! :rotfl2:

on a serious side:
I wish our political parties would show the same amount of unity in passing a resolution to friendly, democratic countries like China, Saudi-Arabia, etc.
Always nice to see how these people are experts about Israels security policy, having had an amount of terror here here which is next to nothing compared to the terror in Israel. I always wonder what would happed if the Dutch (greetings to our neighbours:salute:) would fire some rockets to Germany every day. People here would go ape**** and we would basically have a police state. These same politicians who use any excuse of a real or unreal threat to take away freedoms in the interest of security are the ones who wnat to tell another country how to deal with its OWN security. :damn:

[MH]

The Region: Legitimizing Hamas rule

By BARRY RUBIN (profbarryrubin@yahoo.com)
06/27/2010 22:00

The White House’s June 20 statement on the Gaza blockade shows that the Obama administration has abandoned all strategic concepts in its approach to the matter.

Talkbacks (27)


The White House’s June 20 statement on Gaza is immensely revealing of the shortcomings in US policy. It isn’t at all just a matter of policy toward Israel but of a failure to consider the broader US national interest.

Here’s the real issue: Does the US want the long-term existence of a revolutionary Islamist mini-state on the Mediterranean, spreading terrorism and anti-Semitism, eager to go to war with Israel again, working hard to block any Israel-Palestinian peace, expelling Christians, oppressing women and subverting moderate Arab states? It begins: “The president has described the situation in Gaza as unsustainable and has made clear that it demands fundamental change.”



One would expect the words “unsustainable” and “demands fundamental change” to mean the president demands the overthrow of the Hamas regime. In fact, it signifies the exact opposite: He demands that regime’s stabilization.

The statement continues by describing Obama’s plan to give roughly $200 million to Gaza as “a down payment on the US commitment to the people of Gaza, who deserve a chance to take part in building a viable, independent state of Palestine, together with those who live in the West Bank.”

Just think of that paragraph’s implications: a “down payment” on a “US commitment,” that is, not an act of generosity for which the US must get something in return. Rather, the phrasing makes it seem the US owes them the money.

Moreover, such aid retards rather than advances building a Palestinian state by shoring up a Hamas government which is against the Palestinian Authority, against peace with Israel and against a two-state solution.

Note, too, that Hamas is put on an equal plane with the PA. And couldn’t the administration have said that the state must be built in the context of the Oslo Accords or under the PA’s leadership? There is no mention of even the Quartet conditions: Nothing is said about Hamas abandoning terrorism or accepting Israel’s existence or submitting to the PA as the legitimate government.

The statement is absolutely unconditional. Only the “humanitarian” consideration counts, as if the US government is a community organizer building a welfare program.

THIS ABDICATION of strategy and politics would be like the US making a commitment to help the people of North Vietnam during the Vietnam War or North Korea during the Korean War by pouring in money and goods unconditionally, saying this would help lead to a moderate unified state.

Don’t those who govern the Gaza Strip as a dictatorship (an anti-Semitic, anti-American, terrorist, revolutionary Islamist, would-be genocidal, Christian-expelling, women-repressing and allied to Iran dictatorship at that) matter one bit? The announcement continued by welcoming Israel’s new policy as something that “should significantly improve conditions for Palestinians in Gaza, while preventing the entry of weapons.”

In other words, the US has no problem with Hamas ruling Gaza as long as weapons are kept out. There is absolutely no strategic concept in the US approach.

Meanwhile, the White House makes clear that Israel’s concessions aren’t sufficient. Blandly but incredibly, the statement continues: “We will work...

to explore additional ways to improve the situation in Gaza, including greater freedom of movement and commerce between Gaza and the West Bank.”

Now while it is true that this could mean PA supporters go to Gaza and subvert the regime’s power, it’s more likely that the practical implication would be that Hamas militants, bomb-makers and agitators would get into the West Bank. When Israel restricts the passage between the two areas, would it then be accused of inhibiting Palestinian “freedom of movement?” Did anyone in the administration think of conditioning the easing of the embargo and the US aid on Gilad Schalit’s release or some other Hamas concession? Of course not.

And the statement ends: “We urge all those wishing to deliver goods to do so through established channels so that their cargo can be inspected and transferred via land crossings into Gaza. There is no need for unnecessary confrontations.”

Of course, all of this won’t discourage ships sailing and pro-Hamas militants seeking confrontation. After all, Western policy teaches them that confrontation means massive victories in demonizing Israel and gaining concessions. Why should anyone dismiss them as “unnecessary”? In this statement there is not one word criticizing Hamas. And there is no hint that any thought has been given to the strategic implications of accepting a Hamas regime and allowing it to normalize the economic situation even while it is creating a nightmare political and social situation for Gazans.

Let’s assume the administration had the same goals but went about it with different rhetoric. It would condemn Hamas extensively but then say that, of course, it should not be able to hold the people in Gaza as hostages and that they should not suffer just because they are ruled by a terrible dictatorship.

The statement could look forward to the day when they are liberated from these extremist, repressive rulers. I’m not saying this is my preferred policy, but it is a way for the Obama administration to implement its policy without abandoning any strategic interest in weakening Iran-backed revolutionary Islamism and terrorism.

In other words, the administration could have said: Hamas is our enemy; the people of Gaza are our friends. We don’t want you to suffer. We want you to get rid of Hamas, join with the PA and make a lasting peace with Israel. If you are moderate and abandon terrorism, you will be better off and get your own state through negotiations with Israel.

But that was not the strategic line taken.

In this bland little White House statement we see the current US government’s massive strategic failure.

The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and editor of Middle East Review of International Affairs and Turkish Studies. He blogs at

Taken from Jerusalem Post