|
Stay on topic. I cannot put it more clearly then that. Derailments will be met with consequences. ~Nyovne |
On December 01 2012 05:57 abominare wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:48 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 05:41 abominare wrote:On December 01 2012 05:04 Art.FeeL wrote:
Can anyone explain why Israel and USA (and some other nations too) opposed the status upgrade Palestine got. Their words are usually that of ''resolving the conflict through negotiations'' and this UN thing doesn't really oppose it. They also say that they are for a Palestinian state so shouldn't they vote for? Anyone with more insight? Israel has been a very good ally to several western nations, its kinda back stabby to go off and undermine them by accepting palestine. Furthermore theres nothing to be gained for those countries to accept palestine, it would simply just be another hostile country to them from the middle east. Most countries in the middle east are terrible at playing the world politics game. They seem simply ignorant to the size of the world beyond them. A lot of people will say Israel gets a lot of support from being a democracy this is mostly hogwash. In reality other governments care very little about the leadership structure of a country, the question is how well do you play with others. Take Saudi Arabia, this is a country where they are still ruled by a monarchy a rather unpopular monarchy too I might add. They still run around and cut off peoples hands and do public headings and other things the rest of the world moved on from hundreds of years ago. Yet they are strongly backed by most of the world governments. They cooperate, they don't openly support enemies of big players. They simply operate in the market and do their own thing. Thus they're a relatively wealthy and industrialized nation. Israel does the same thing, other governments like people who are willing to play the game. If you don't play the game, you're going to end up a shit hole plain and simple its pretty much been like that for thousands of years. You massively mischaracterise the situation in Saudi Arabia. The monarchy is unpopular precisely because it is much more moderate and western than the people would like it to be. The irony of the dictatorships left around the world by the imperial system in the past is that their leaders are generally a product of either western education or of a military trained in a western system. The Saudi elites co-operate not simply because of their self interests but also by inclination, their beliefs are not those of their people. It's one of the issues that will need to be faced in the world following the Arab Spring, that democracy is only as good as the electorate. The public beheadings and so forth are more because of the people than the monarchy, we don't tolerate the repressive monarchy in spite of them, we tolerate the repression done by the monarchy because of them. Oh no I fully get the situation there, the essence of my argument is that its only important how the government interacts with the world stage. The Saudi ruling class understands whats going on, they play the game, and they play it well even if their citizens don't appreciate it. Hell if they (edit: the citizens) had it their way, we actually would have let Saddam roll through them. (Ironically he thought he had our permission for his southern excursions in empire making because we stood silent when he asked if he could since we were already good friends with him) Arab Spring is really just a buzz word that gets thrown about for the we love democracy types. Governments really don't get a flip what you are as long as you play the world politics game like everyone else. I'll put it this way, its totally ok for your citizens to run out and say death to america, as long as the guy in charge is willing to play ball with the americans. Its when the guy in charge starts saying it that you have problems.
What you just said made me lol hard. A very naive understanding of the 80s-90s Mideast. Saudi Arabia is the most Islamist nation in the world. Wahhabism is by far the most extreme form of Islam. And you're saying SA is too moderate and western? what
The stuff about Iraq and the US was also a bit silly. And that Saudi Arabians wanted to be conquered, or that there was going to be such a thing. lol
On December 01 2012 07:28 blinken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 07:24 Jormundr wrote:On December 01 2012 07:06 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 06:55 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 06:22 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 05:39 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 05:33 NicolBolas wrote:On December 01 2012 05:02 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:54 NicolBolas wrote:
That I don't buy. Israel has done enough bad acting in this war to make me suspicious of any "higher aspirations" they might have. Their opposition of Palestinian statehood being a prime example.
There is no reason for them to oppose statehood other than their own personal self-interest. They don't want the Palestinians to be able to come to the bargaining table as equals or even slightly more equally. They want to force the Palestinians to do everything exactly as they want.
Israel ceded the moral high ground long ago. To me, the only difference between the two is which one has the bigger army. To my knowledge they resisted Palestinian statehood because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Palestinian statehood essentially equates to a state governed by a malicious terrorist faction. Regardless of the sentiments of your average Palestinian, how can you not see this as a concern to Israel...? Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight. What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower. Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game? You can say that Hamas has to avoid wearing uniform to avoid simply being targeted and killed due to the superior Israeli arsenal and you can say that Israel is seeking to demonise them and both of those statements are true. And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. They're terrorists. There is a line, they crossed it. Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ? I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists. I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer. We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_IINot a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not. Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one. What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Only 25,000? It was half a million people by generous estimates. One thing that's interesting and strange, despite strategic calls by German military commanders to attack British civilian populations during the Battle of Britain to break British morale, Hitler vehemently refused it. This is why British civilian deaths are so low considering the amount of warfare that took place. It does make sense though. If the Germans had killing civilians on the agenda, they could have wiped out hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Same goes for the Israelis. If they wanted to wipe out masses of Palestinian people, they completely have the means to do so. As we see, though, they have not.
|
On December 01 2012 23:49 don_kyuhote wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 22:08 Op wrote:
Why doesn't Israel try to make peace with Abbas (West-Bank), let him develop the West-Bank and show Hamas what it can win by abandoning violence ?
I am afraid this won't happen with the current Netanyahu government :-(. Ehud Olmert actually welcomed the new status of the Palestinians in the UN, and saw it as a step forward in the peace process.
Is there any chance the more peace-oriented political parties in Israel will win the upcoming election ? Abbas wants Israel to go back to 1967 borders, and Israel says no (at least under the Netanyahu gov). I don't know enough about the political climate inside Israel to know if there is a political party in Israel that is willing to go back to 1967 border or their chances of coming into power.
If everybody sticks to fixed positions then there is no negotiation... From my memory the peace roadmap of the quartet and previous negotiations were all based on the 1967 borders as a base-line for negotiation.
Anyway the Netanyahu government seems to want to avoid/stall any negotiations, blaming whoever is most convenient. Abbas seems to have been reasonable lately, so Hamas provides a really easy excuse not to negotiate (they just provoke each other a bit whenever is convenient for either party and the whole thing escalates). In the mean Netanyahu wants to change the situation on the ground by building settlements in what would be Palestinian land based on the 1967 borders. If the Israeli live their long enough it will become Israeli land and the Israeli government will be even less likely to accept anywhere close to the 1967 borders...
Looks like Netanyahu is quite happy with the current situation, but will it be sustainable in the end ? It feels like pushing a very difficult problem just further down the road, which is bad for both Israeli's and Palestinians..
|
United States42778 Posts
The bombing of Dresden did not kill half a million people and Abominare's post related to the Saudi ruling class rather than the people. You are making things up sir.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there is no need for presuming malice or even unjustified action on the part of israel for there to be a problem. the justification of war/state violence process itself is an incomplete heuristic and can produce catastrophic results even when fullly justified.
when kids fight each other, they can go to pretty extreme lengths and produce severe consequences. the thought process that justifies fighting does not account for any consequence of fighting. it operates by a deontic calculus of rights, whether one participant is 100000x more powerful than the other or not.
if say a kid beat someone into a coma, there would not be so many defenders of the injured party's just dessert. the lack of awareness of the severe consequences produced by israeli action is the key that produces the kind of "thinking" that choose to focus on an accounting of sins, rather than the real plight of millions of people living in desperation.
|
On December 02 2012 00:49 oneofthem wrote:
there is no need for presuming malice or even unjustified action on the part of israel for there to be a problem. the justification of war/state violence process itself is an incomplete heuristic and can produce catastrophic results even when fullly justified.
when kids fight each other, they can go to pretty extreme lengths and produce severe consequences. the thought process that justifies fighting does not account for any consequence of fighting. it operates by a deontic calculus of rights, whether one participant is 100000x more powerful than the other or not.
if say a kid beat someone into a coma, there would not be so many defenders of the injured party's just dessert. the lack of awareness of the severe consequences produced by israeli action is the key that produces the kind of "thinking" that choose to focus on an accounting of sins, rather than the real plight of millions of people living in desperation.
basically:
it doesn't matter that they are in the right, they are too strong.
sorry, but if a small kid goes and tries to stab a much bigger kid, and then gets socked in the teeth for it, I'm not going to feel sorry for the small kid, nor will I be so naive as to think that the much larger kid should have tied his hands behind his back to make it more "fair".
|
On December 01 2012 18:41 ClanRH.TV wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 16:54 NicolBolas wrote:On December 01 2012 16:17 fluidin wrote:On December 01 2012 15:42 NicolBolas wrote:
There's a difference between saying that something is right and saying that it's wrong. Everything that is not "right" is not automatically "wrong".
I do not think that it is right for the Palestinians to engage in acts of terror. However, I also don't think it's wrong for them to do so. They are in an untenable position, and it is really the only choice they have save, well, what you suggested (which I don't see as a legitimate option for reasons stated below).
Who am I to judge the morality of the actions of people trapped between two terrible alternatives? I'm not willing to judge people caught in an extreme situation for being wrong to take an extreme stand. Just as I'm not willing to judge a starving man who steals bread to feed himself. You do know this also means you cannot judge the actions of the Israeli people as such right? I hope you are not going to argue that the extremity of their actions are different, and that one can be judged while the other shouldn't. Actually, yes. This is asymmetric warfare; the two sides are by definition not equal. As the side that's got the actual army, territory, resources, etc, they have the greatest number of viable options to pick from. Israel doesn't have to resort to terrorism against the Palestinians, and they don't. They can choose direct warfare. They can choose to add more settlements in Gaza, or not to do so. It's a lot easier to pass moral judgement on the side that isn't backed into a corner and only given two bad options. On December 01 2012 16:17 fluidin wrote:On December 01 2012 15:42 NicolBolas wrote:
So the alternative is to... pick from the scraps of Israel's table? To essentially become a permanent underclass with little to any prospects for future improvement, no wealth to exploit (since their Israeli overlords got all of the decent land), no way to train the next generation to provide better lives for themselves, no real chance for anything beyond whatever the Israeli's decide to magnanimously give you in aid (which is little more than "enough to keep you from rioting and making a nuisance of yourselves")?
Given that option, one wonders why so many see terrorism as a viable alternative to essentially giving up on their future own future. </sarcasm> At least with terrorism, there's a chance things can get better.
So no, I don't see that as a viable alternative. I absolutely do not believe this. There is always a chance to rise up from the ashes. Ironically, Israel did just that. The situation might be different, but who's to say there is no chance? This should always be preferable to terrorism. Heck, if you follow Buddhist teachings, allowing oneself to perish is heaps better than terrorism. Sure, they have a chance. Just like the Native Americans have risen up from the near-complete genocide of their people to... oh wait, they didn't. They live segregated on reservations, and the closest thing they have to an actual industry is gambling. Israel shows exactly what you need for that: international recognition and support from nations (where would Israel's military be without the US there to sell them stuff at reasonable prices?), as well as land with viable resources on it that someone might want. A nation needs these things to succeed, and Israel's current government opposes giving any of these to the Palestinians. So while there may be a chance, can you really say that this chance is better than the chance they take with terrorism? Which has the greatest chance of achieving something? Not to slide off topic, but did you read the history of war between the two nations? It wasn't always like this. Palestine has always been the aggressor because they (along with other Arab nations) couldn't be content with the way land was distributed. They made poor decisions and they now suffer the consequences. Decisions come with consequences.
Palestine was given like 45% of the land, including most of the useless land, despite having a larger population than Israel, and despite the fact that it was their land to begin with. The arab world rejected the UN's authority for coming up with such unfair terms, and they were forced to accept the terms or take the matter into their own hands. The UN had a pity party for the jews, because of the Nazis, but they let the arabs pay for the party. The world today would have been so different if they hadn't done that.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 02 2012 01:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 00:49 oneofthem wrote:
there is no need for presuming malice or even unjustified action on the part of israel for there to be a problem. the justification of war/state violence process itself is an incomplete heuristic and can produce catastrophic results even when fullly justified.
when kids fight each other, they can go to pretty extreme lengths and produce severe consequences. the thought process that justifies fighting does not account for any consequence of fighting. it operates by a deontic calculus of rights, whether one participant is 100000x more powerful than the other or not.
if say a kid beat someone into a coma, there would not be so many defenders of the injured party's just dessert. the lack of awareness of the severe consequences produced by israeli action is the key that produces the kind of "thinking" that choose to focus on an accounting of sins, rather than the real plight of millions of people living in desperation. basically: it doesn't matter that they are in the right, they are too strong. sorry, but if a small kid goes and tries to stab a much bigger kid, and then gets socked in the teeth for it, I'm not going to feel sorry for the small kid, nor will I be so naive as to think that the much larger kid should have tied his hands behind his back to make it more "fair".
israel didn't get stabbed though. they are doing way better. the point is consequence vs deontic sins accounting.
|
On December 02 2012 00:49 KwarK wrote:
The bombing of Dresden did not kill half a million people and Abominare's post related to the Saudi ruling class rather than the people. You are making things up sir.
To be fair, your wikipedia article wasn't related to the guy you quoted as well, he talked about attacks after settlements would have been installed, fact is, there were none installed in GB or France the way Israel does down there.
(I'm not taking any sides here and don't even want to get into your discussion, just pointing out a flaw in your logic.)
|
How someone can support a country like Israel that stops ships carrying food, medicine and building materials to help people that suffered from war crimes commited Israel is beyond me .....
|
On December 02 2012 01:55 Intact wrote:
How someone can support a country like Israel that stops ships carrying food, medicine and building materials to help people that suffered from war crimes commited Israel is beyond me .....
You mean the fact that we supply all the electricity, fuel and water? The fact the the supplies were offered to be transferred as long as they were first screened? Or maybe that despite the Hamas has control of Gaza and openly calls for the destruction of Israel and yet Egypt who also shares a border with Gaza only supplies it with a fraction of what Israel supplies? Ya i also dont know how people can support us.
|
On December 02 2012 02:03 Gooz en wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 01:55 Intact wrote:
How someone can support a country like Israel that stops ships carrying food, medicine and building materials to help people that suffered from war crimes commited Israel is beyond me ..... You mean the fact that we supply all the electricity, fuel and water? The fact the the supplies were offered to be transferred as long as they were first screened? Or maybe that despite the Hamas has control of Gaza and openly calls for the destruction of Israel and yet Egypt who also shares a border with Gaza only supplies it with a fraction of what Israel supplies? Ya i also dont know how people can support us.
How gracious of you to supply fuel, water and electricity after you stole their land and waged war on their civilians. The last time I checked people who go into international waters, board innocent ships and kill 9 people were considered pirates. Israel would have been under extremely hard sanctions if it weren't for their buddy America holding their back and vetoing every action in the UN.
|
On December 02 2012 02:08 Intact wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 02:03 Gooz en wrote:On December 02 2012 01:55 Intact wrote:
How someone can support a country like Israel that stops ships carrying food, medicine and building materials to help people that suffered from war crimes commited Israel is beyond me ..... You mean the fact that we supply all the electricity, fuel and water? The fact the the supplies were offered to be transferred as long as they were first screened? Or maybe that despite the Hamas has control of Gaza and openly calls for the destruction of Israel and yet Egypt who also shares a border with Gaza only supplies it with a fraction of what Israel supplies? Ya i also dont know how people can support us. How gracious of you to supply fuel, water and electricity after you stole their land and waged war on their civilians. The last time I checked people who go into international waters, board innocent ships and kill 9 people were considered pirates. Israel would have been under extremely hard sanctions if it weren't for their buddy America holding their back and vetoing every action in the UN.
OT but naval blockade is legal. The point of my post was that the issue is far from one sided yet you display it as if it is by repeating the same demagogue statements we have heard before.
|
On December 02 2012 02:03 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 01:55 Intact wrote:
How someone can support a country like Israel that stops ships carrying food, medicine and building materials to help people that suffered from war crimes commited Israel is beyond me ..... You mean the fact that we supply all the electricity, fuel and water? The fact the the supplies were offered to be transferred as long as they were first screened? Or maybe that despite the Hamas has control of Gaza and openly calls for the destruction of Israel and yet Egypt who also shares a border with Gaza only supplies it with a fraction of what Israel supplies? Ya i also dont know how people can support us.
We have been through this many times already in this thread. And that "humanitarian aid" amounts to as much as the food you give prisoners in jail. If the blockade is legal or not is a moot point since it is war criminals who decide what is legal in this case.
On December 01 2012 03:28 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:23 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:21 oneofthem wrote:
that this crisis is happening on israel's doorsteps does in itself put responsibility on israel to do something, particularly when active measures are contributing to the ongoing situation.
This would be why Israel gives a colossal amount of humanitarian aid to Palestine? Which doesn't correspond even to a small bit to what they make out of the land that legally belongs to the Palestinians? They don't let the Palestinians trade or export their goods, they don't give them access to what used to be their cultivable land, they don't let them fish more than 10 km from the cost. They keep them alive, barely, but talking about humanitarian aid is just too much, in my opinion.
|
On December 01 2012 03:28 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:23 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:21 oneofthem wrote:
that this crisis is happening on israel's doorsteps does in itself put responsibility on israel to do something, particularly when active measures are contributing to the ongoing situation.
This would be why Israel gives a colossal amount of humanitarian aid to Palestine? Which doesn't correspond even to a small bit to what they make out of the land that legally belongs to the Palestinians? They don't let the Palestinians trade or export their goods, they don't give them access to what used to be their cultivable land, they don't let them fish more than 10 km from the cost. They keep them alive, barely, but talking about humanitarian aid is just too much, in my opinion.
under which law does the land belong to the Palestinian Arabs?
|
On December 02 2012 02:45 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 02:03 Goozen wrote:On December 02 2012 01:55 Intact wrote:
How someone can support a country like Israel that stops ships carrying food, medicine and building materials to help people that suffered from war crimes commited Israel is beyond me ..... You mean the fact that we supply all the electricity, fuel and water? The fact the the supplies were offered to be transferred as long as they were first screened? Or maybe that despite the Hamas has control of Gaza and openly calls for the destruction of Israel and yet Egypt who also shares a border with Gaza only supplies it with a fraction of what Israel supplies? Ya i also dont know how people can support us. We have been through this many times already in this thread. And that "humanitarian aid" amounts to as much as the food you give prisoners in jail. If the blockade is legal or not is a moot point since it is war criminals who decide what is legal in this case. Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:28 Elroi wrote:On December 01 2012 03:23 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:21 oneofthem wrote:
that this crisis is happening on israel's doorsteps does in itself put responsibility on israel to do something, particularly when active measures are contributing to the ongoing situation.
This would be why Israel gives a colossal amount of humanitarian aid to Palestine? Which doesn't correspond even to a small bit to what they make out of the land that legally belongs to the Palestinians? They don't let the Palestinians trade or export their goods, they don't give them access to what used to be their cultivable land, they don't let them fish more than 10 km from the cost. They keep them alive, barely, but talking about humanitarian aid is just too much, in my opinion.
Factually incorrect, also you ignore 2 things:
1. Egypt shares a border with Gaza who have also kept it close yet its only Israels fault
2. The Palestinians in the west bank have a much higher quality of life (import, export etc) and they are not trying to kill Israelis. so perhaps there is a connection?
3. Israel did a full withdraw from Gaza, all the contested land is in the west bank, there is no contested land in Gaza and they had a opportunity to have a much higher quality of life.
|
On December 02 2012 03:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:28 Elroi wrote:On December 01 2012 03:23 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:21 oneofthem wrote:
that this crisis is happening on israel's doorsteps does in itself put responsibility on israel to do something, particularly when active measures are contributing to the ongoing situation.
This would be why Israel gives a colossal amount of humanitarian aid to Palestine? Which doesn't correspond even to a small bit to what they make out of the land that legally belongs to the Palestinians? They don't let the Palestinians trade or export their goods, they don't give them access to what used to be their cultivable land, they don't let them fish more than 10 km from the cost. They keep them alive, barely, but talking about humanitarian aid is just too much, in my opinion. under which law does the land belong to the Palestinian Arabs?
Well even Israel has to accept that today at least Gaza is not their land, therefore the naval and other blockades are illegal. Constant spying on them is considered an act of war mongering also. And putting fences and erecting walls and making cross border incursions are also not so legal. A big, big jail indeed.
I guess if we reverse the question your answer would be ''under God's law''??
Factually incorrect, also you ignore 2 things:
1. Egypt shares a border with Gaza who have also kept it close yet its only Israels fault
2. The Palestinians in the west bank have a much higher quality of life (import, export etc) and they are not trying to kill Israelis. so perhaps there is a connection?
3. Israel did a full withdraw from Gaza, all the contested land is in the west bank, there is no contested land in Gaza and they had a opportunity to have a much higher quality of life.
Egypt had its borders closed only because of Mubarak, your best friend. And your argument about west bank is flawed, hey you'll have better quality of life, but let us first build settlements and divide your territory and put checkpoints everywhere so we can control you better.
|
On December 02 2012 03:08 Art.FeeL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 03:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:28 Elroi wrote:On December 01 2012 03:23 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:21 oneofthem wrote:
that this crisis is happening on israel's doorsteps does in itself put responsibility on israel to do something, particularly when active measures are contributing to the ongoing situation.
This would be why Israel gives a colossal amount of humanitarian aid to Palestine? Which doesn't correspond even to a small bit to what they make out of the land that legally belongs to the Palestinians? They don't let the Palestinians trade or export their goods, they don't give them access to what used to be their cultivable land, they don't let them fish more than 10 km from the cost. They keep them alive, barely, but talking about humanitarian aid is just too much, in my opinion. under which law does the land belong to the Palestinian Arabs? Well even Israel has to accept that today at least Gaza is not their land, therefore the naval and other blockades are illegal. Constant spying on them is considered an act of war mongering also. And putting fences and erecting walls and making cross border incursions are also not so legal. A big, big jail indeed. I guess if we reverse the question your answer would be ''under God's law''??
under which laws are naval blockades illegal?
I don't think "warmongering" is a legal term either. and how is putting up fences also illegal? where in heaven's name are you getting these ideas?
God's law ain't got nothing to do with it (other than not supporting Hamas, a bullshit terrorist POS organization)
|
On December 02 2012 03:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 03:08 Art.FeeL wrote:On December 02 2012 03:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:28 Elroi wrote:On December 01 2012 03:23 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:21 oneofthem wrote:
that this crisis is happening on israel's doorsteps does in itself put responsibility on israel to do something, particularly when active measures are contributing to the ongoing situation.
This would be why Israel gives a colossal amount of humanitarian aid to Palestine? Which doesn't correspond even to a small bit to what they make out of the land that legally belongs to the Palestinians? They don't let the Palestinians trade or export their goods, they don't give them access to what used to be their cultivable land, they don't let them fish more than 10 km from the cost. They keep them alive, barely, but talking about humanitarian aid is just too much, in my opinion. under which law does the land belong to the Palestinian Arabs? Well even Israel has to accept that today at least Gaza is not their land, therefore the naval and other blockades are illegal. Constant spying on them is considered an act of war mongering also. And putting fences and erecting walls and making cross border incursions are also not so legal. A big, big jail indeed. I guess if we reverse the question your answer would be ''under God's law''?? under which laws are naval blockades illegal? I don't think "warmongering" is a legal term either. and how is putting up fences also illegal? where in heaven's name are you getting these ideas? God's law ain't got nothing to do with it (other than not supporting Hamas, a bullshit terrorist POS organization)
So USA can freely put naval blockade on China and threaten their fishermen, pretty legal huh? Between Gaza and Israel there is your common border passage, just like like between Mexico and USA, amirite?
|
On December 02 2012 03:08 Art.FeeL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 03:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:28 Elroi wrote:On December 01 2012 03:23 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:21 oneofthem wrote:
that this crisis is happening on israel's doorsteps does in itself put responsibility on israel to do something, particularly when active measures are contributing to the ongoing situation.
This would be why Israel gives a colossal amount of humanitarian aid to Palestine? Which doesn't correspond even to a small bit to what they make out of the land that legally belongs to the Palestinians? They don't let the Palestinians trade or export their goods, they don't give them access to what used to be their cultivable land, they don't let them fish more than 10 km from the cost. They keep them alive, barely, but talking about humanitarian aid is just too much, in my opinion. under which law does the land belong to the Palestinian Arabs? Well even Israel has to accept that today at least Gaza is not their land, therefore the naval and other blockades are illegal. Constant spying on them is considered an act of war mongering also. And putting fences and erecting walls and making cross border incursions are also not so legal. A big, big jail indeed. I guess if we reverse the question your answer would be ''under God's law''?? Show nested quote +Factually incorrect, also you ignore 2 things:
1. Egypt shares a border with Gaza who have also kept it close yet its only Israels fault
2. The Palestinians in the west bank have a much higher quality of life (import, export etc) and they are not trying to kill Israelis. so perhaps there is a connection?
3. Israel did a full withdraw from Gaza, all the contested land is in the west bank, there is no contested land in Gaza and they had a opportunity to have a much higher quality of life. Egypt had its borders closed only because of Mubarak, your best friend. And your argument about west bank is flawed, hey you'll have better quality of life, but let us first build settlements and divide your territory and put checkpoints everywhere so we can control you better.
Then why is it still closed today under Morsi? Or do you think he will open it some time in the future?
|
On December 02 2012 03:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 03:08 Art.FeeL wrote:On December 02 2012 03:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:28 Elroi wrote:On December 01 2012 03:23 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:21 oneofthem wrote:
that this crisis is happening on israel's doorsteps does in itself put responsibility on israel to do something, particularly when active measures are contributing to the ongoing situation.
This would be why Israel gives a colossal amount of humanitarian aid to Palestine? Which doesn't correspond even to a small bit to what they make out of the land that legally belongs to the Palestinians? They don't let the Palestinians trade or export their goods, they don't give them access to what used to be their cultivable land, they don't let them fish more than 10 km from the cost. They keep them alive, barely, but talking about humanitarian aid is just too much, in my opinion. under which law does the land belong to the Palestinian Arabs? Well even Israel has to accept that today at least Gaza is not their land, therefore the naval and other blockades are illegal. Constant spying on them is considered an act of war mongering also. And putting fences and erecting walls and making cross border incursions are also not so legal. A big, big jail indeed. I guess if we reverse the question your answer would be ''under God's law''?? under which laws are naval blockades illegal? I don't think "warmongering" is a legal term either. and how is putting up fences also illegal? where in heaven's name are you getting these ideas? God's law ain't got nothing to do with it (other than not supporting Hamas, a bullshit terrorist POS organization)
Several countries are currently deploying naval forces in The Gulf of Aden in order to fight pirates, so I guess Canada, US, UK, France, Sweden and Germany consider it illegal. The UN report states "The Israel army used excessive force in this incident by firing stun and smoke grenades from the Israeli army's speed boats and helicopters before boarding into flotilla and conducted live fire rounds from the helicopters before or after boarding, though the flotilla was still in international waters."
Seems like actions that would deem you a pirate in my eyes.
I also think there is a pretty big difference between "putting up fences" and constructing giant concrete walls to enclose an entire population within a controlled and low resource area, forcing them to go through checkpoint to be controlled before they are allowed to go work on the land that they own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
