israeli navy fires on Gaza aid flotilla

Page 66 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
I don't see the West Bank and Gaza on that map, of course if Palestinians have a map without Israel on it, everyone makes a big stink about it.

West Bank was carved by the British.

West Bank is merely West Jordan, like Israel.

You do know this right?

Gaza is historically part of Egypt.

Perhaps if the Arab leadership created a Palestinian state when they controlled Gaza/WB/half of Jerusalem then maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
The only bigots are the leaders of the countries surrounding Israel who pass laws marginalizing Jews in public life and make statements denying the Holocaust, or stating that Israel should be wiped off the map.
I agree such things are bigoted. However, how do you figure the ones who pass laws marginalizing Arabs in public life and make statements denying the Nakba, or stating that Palestine should be wiped off the map are anything but bigoted too?

Israel's only requirements for peace talks with Hamas were that:
Rather, since long before Hamas even existed, Israel has constantly refused to talk "peace" unless Palestinians forfeited much of their rights under international law, ignoring the fact that there can't rightly be peace without justice. Put simply, under international law:

  1. Gaza and the West Bank are Palestinian territory, every last bit of East Jerusalem included.
  2. Palestinian refugees of what is now Israel have the right to return, so Israel must either allow them to return or offer reasonable compensation in exchange for them relinquishing that right.
While the Palestinian Authority, Arab League, and the vast majority of the nations in the UN have all suggested that peace can and should be achieved on such basis, Israel has never shown any interest in anything of the sort, and US veto power over the UNSC backs them on that. Blaming Hamas for a policy which has existed since long before they did is simply a canard.
 
Last edited:

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
Rather, since long before Hamas even existed, Israel has constantly refused to talk "peace" unless Palestinians forfeited much of their rights under international law, ignoring the fact that there can't rightly be peace without justice. Put simply, under international law:
While the Palestinian Authority, Arab League, and the vast majority of the nations in the UN have all suggested that peace can and should be achieved on such basis, Israel has never shown any interest in anything of the sort, and US veto power over the UNSC backs them on that. Blaming Hamas for a policy which has existed since long before they did is simply a canard. __________________

revisionist history much? arabs and muslims have rejected peace talks over and over and over again. israel wanted peace in 1948, arabs said no. israel agreed to a negotiated peace in 67, arabs said no.

wasn't until israel humiliated the arabs in 5 consecutive wars did they finally make peace, but only on the condition that they continue to use the palestinians as pawns.
  1. Gaza and the West Bank are Palestinian territory, every last bit of East Jerusalem included.
  2. Palestinian refugees of what is now Israel have the right to return, so Israel must either allow them to return or offer reasonable compensation in exchange for them relinquishing that right.

A) Gaza/WB/Jerusalem are all subject to negotiation which is the fundamental parameter of every peace deal rejected by the Arabs.

B) Palestinian "refugees" have zero right to displace Israeli citizens.

Palestinians are unique because they are the only refugees whose decedents are considered refugees, and only refugees whose mandate is not resettlement.

oh, and only refugees who are refuge of a state they were never citizens of.

the "right of return" is neither sanctioned by international law or any UNSC resolution.

israel did agree to set up a some sort of fund that would allow palestinians to receive monetary compensation, and reparate palestinians who were separated from their families in 1948 though most have no passed on or already gained citizenship during post-1948+ gestures.

the way the Arabs make demands you'd think they won 5 consecutive wars. this zero-sum mentality is the reason why the palestinians are still dispossed. they refuse to compromise, they negotiate to negotiate, and the so-called "moderates" can do shit when hamas is being empowered by the EU and UN.

fatah continues to say there is no humanitarian crisis in gaza, and allowing those sorts of buzzwords to come out only encourages belligerence and allows hamas to continue its false rule.

you've been proven wrong and wrong again, owned many times by courtesy and I...yet you refused to accept defeat.
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
Yeah, revisionist history is all you've got, while the Arab League has a standing offer for a two-state solution on the basis of international law.

the arab peace initiative is a publicity stunt designed by Saudi Arabia to draw attention away from their complicity in 9/11.

And it is not predicated on "international law." It's just another do-as-we-say and we *promise* to make peace.

It says Israel must adhere to all preconditions the Arabs states demand, and then peace will come.

In other words, you have failed to win our affection Israel, so do more of us.

But of course you accept the bigoted Arab states POV unchallenged, and you can't even respond to my post without listing the most frivilous and absurd "offer" by the Arab League that even most moderates laugh away.

edit: Oh, and the Arab peace initiative has very little to do with the Palestinians. Arab states have already surrendered to Israel, and have directed most of their resources to the Palestinians, which has yet to end.

Whatever the Arabs promise, they cannot control the Palestinians, and of course Iran has nothing to do with the "peace initiative" which is basically the country Israel is at war with.

It also does not address the half a dozen peace agreements the Palestinians signed and violated, nor the UNSC resolutions Israel agreed to and Arabs rejected (such as UNSC242, real international law).

In a nut shell - the Arab states know very well Israel could never accept such an absurd proposition because it places all the responsibility on Israel and none on the Arab states.

Israel might as well right it's own initiative - you recognize our existence and we won't convert you to a radioactive desert.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
arabwld3.gif

I don't see the West Bank and Gaza on that map, of course if Palestinians have a map without Israel on it, everyone makes a big stink about it.

That map shows countries.

When did the West Bank and Gaza become a country?:rolleyes:

There was never any such talk of a country in what was the other divided section of Arab Palestine by the Palestinians and Arabs UNTIL they realized that they were unable to take over Israel. Then they had to go to plan B
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,968
3,956
136
Just out of curiosity, how does the hardline Hamas leadership feel about the League's proposal?

Oh yeah...

Since that map contains the word "Israel", they almost certainly hate it.

Although they might enjoy getting back all those super-convenient artillery positions in the Golan.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Don't know if this is a repeat but

The Reuters news agency has been accused of removing images of activists wielding weapons and bloodied and wounded Israeli naval commandos from photographs taken on board a ship headed for Gaza during deadly clashes last week

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...s-blood-from-images-of-gaza-flotilla-1.294780
cropping to make something fit inside a specif dimension might be acceptable without digital technology.

There are people within the Reuters that are deliberating controlling the pictures of the incident with a bias.

The controlling people at Reuters know that and tolerate it. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
 

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,973
6,340
136
cropping to make something fit inside a specif dimension might be acceptable without digital technology.

There are people within the Reuters that are deliberating controlling the pictures of the incident with a bias.

The controlling people at Reuters know that and tolerate it. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
Looks like the "whole picture" comes out a lot when groups do this type of thing. Wonder how often it remains hidden?
 

SandEagle

Lifer
Aug 4, 2007
16,809
13
0
israel lifts 3-year ban on soda, sweets, cookies, chips

msnbc.msn.com/id/37588494/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

depriving 1.5+million people of this? if it wasnt for the attention from the flotilla raid, this ban probably wouldnt have been known and wouldve went on for another 10 years. pathetic
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Perhaps Reuters cropped it on purpose. I have no idea what their motivation was. I wouldn't have cropped it. The passengers should have defended their ship with whatever they had available.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Perhaps Reuters cropped it on purpose. I have no idea what their motivation was. I wouldn't have cropped it. The passengers should have defended their ship with whatever they had available.
really? Why? What was the point of their violent ambush of the Israeli troops? What good came from raising weapons against the Israeli forces? Besides your own misguided sympathy -- and that of too many others -- what good came from their decision to cause trouble and react violently to the presence of the Israeli boarding forces?

None of the other ships have resisted while being boarded by the same troops, thus nobody on the other ships has been hurt. See how that works? Simple enough concept, right?

So, why did the activists lay an ambush on this one ship? What did they hope to accomplish with their knives and pipes?

I already have my own answer to these questions, but I'd love to see what you come up with...
 
Last edited:

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
really? Why? What was the point of their violent ambush of the Israeli troops?

They were being violently ambushed by the Israelis. They defended themselves.

What good came from raising weapons against the Israeli forces? Besides your own misguided sympathy -- and that of too many others -- what good came from their decision to cause trouble and react violently to the presence of the Israeli boarding forces?

Some people, when pointlessly attacked, will defend themselves as the passengers did. Israelis fired on the ship, then further attacked it by dropping commandos. You can't blame the passengers for defending themselves.

None of the other ships have resisted while being boarded by the same troops, thus nobody on the other ships has been hurt.[/B] See how that works? Simple enough concept, right?

Lie. There were certainly injuries on the other ships.

So, why did the activists lay an ambush on this one ship? What did they hope to accomplish with their knives and pipes?

Israelis were the ones that ambushed. Passengers defended themselves.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Some people, when pointlessly attacked, will defend themselves as the passengers did. Israelis fired on the ship, then further attacked it by dropping commandos. You can't blame the passengers for defending themselves.

You just can't get past your never-ending spin game :D Considering your other thread about the Tea Party support for Orly Taitz, your arguments are about as air-tight as a sieve.
 
Last edited:

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
You just can't get past your never-ending spin game :D

Where's the spin? The only spin I've seen is from Israeli apologists trying to portray a clear attack on the ship as passengers attacking them out of nowhere.

"we were just minding our own business shooting rubber bullets and stun grenades at the ship and dropping commandos from a helicopter in the night when out of nowhere....WE WERE ATTACKED!".
 

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
33,935
54,632
136
israel lifts 3-year ban on soda, sweets, cookies, chips

msnbc.msn.com/id/37588494/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

depriving 1.5+million people of this? if it wasnt for the attention from the flotilla raid, this ban probably wouldnt have been known and wouldve went on for another 10 years. pathetic

I agree...pathetic, now why can i not buy a cuban cigar in the US? why am i being deprived of the right to buy a cuban cigar, pathetic
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
I agree...pathetic, now why can i not buy a cuban cigar in the US? why am i being deprived of the right to buy a cuban cigar, pathetic
crimes against humanity I say.

go throw a rock at an armed soldier and let us know how your protest goes.
 

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
33,935
54,632
136
crimes against humanity I say.

go throw a rock at an armed soldier and let us know how your protest goes.

Now why would i do something stupid like that? i'd rightfully expect to get shot at and killed....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.