israeli navy fires on Gaza aid flotilla

[Freshgeardude]

As it stands right now, we have two sides.

the one side claiming the UN says its illegal, although it is based on opinions of groups within the UN controlled by the arab

and

we have the side which defends the blockade under established and followed legal law. I follow this side, for two reasons, 1. I support israel (who would have guessed) and 2. because israel is following international law, just like they did in this flotilla raid.



Enough with the bickering. As it stands right now, and will stand, like it has for 3 years, the blockade is legal under international law.

 

[Noobtastic]

Sounds like Israel destroyed the Gazan middle class and created perfect conditions for extremism to flourish.

it seems hamas destroyed whatever middle class existed by taking over succesful businesses and turning them into state entities:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2009/0817/p09s01-wome.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2008/0812/p07s02-wome.html

the vast majority of suicide bombers tend to belong to the middle class. wealth as never influenced terrorism.

palestinian standard of living has increased exponentially since the 1st intifada, and yet violence has increased exponentially.

why is one so willing to apologize for homicidal palestinians as a reaction to plight?

saudi arabia is very impoverished, majority of citizens live off state welfare - does that mean 9/11 is okay?

what about all the foreign fighters in iraq killing iraqi civilians and US soldiers?

i guess because american destroyed iraq's economy, people get to blow themselves up.

for 2,000 years jews were oppressed and yet they managed to avoid killing their master.

it seems the palestinians are one of the most decorated "refugees" in the history of mankind, its leaders richer than all of israel's combined - and yet they are portrayed as perpetual victims, incapable of making personal decisions.

it's all israel's fault.

 

[Lemon law]

FreshGearDude is simply FOS in saying, "the one side claiming the UN says its illegal, although it is based on opinions of groups within the UN controlled by the arab"

Maybe FreshGearDude my have a tiny argument regarding Turkey, but also in the freedom flotilla were activists from the USA, Sweden, Ireland, and the the Israeli boarding sparked strong condemnation from Germany, France, Indonesia, Greece, England, as well as raising strong doubts about Israel from more and more US citizens.

In short, that somewhat incomplete list I provided is hardly Arab controlled which means your argument totally fails on any logical basis.

But fact noted, you seem to be a totally biased pro Israeli fan clubber, we already knew that, which gives you a right to your own personal opinions and nothing more.

 

[Freshgeardude]

FreshGearDude is simply FOS in saying, "the one side claiming the UN says its illegal, although it is based on opinions of groups within the UN controlled by the arab"

Maybe FreshGearDude my have a tiny argument regarding Turkey, but also in the freedom flotilla were activists from the USA, Sweden, Ireland, and the the Israeli boarding sparked strong condemnation from Germany, France, Indonesia, Greece, England, as well as raising strong doubts about Israel from more and more US citizens.

In short, that somewhat incomplete list I provided is hardly Arab controlled which means your argument totally fails on any logical basis.

But fact noted, you seem to be a totally biased pro Israeli fan clubber, we already knew that, which gives you a right to your own personal opinions and nothing more.

You have no defense and want to start talking about a different subject.


People were angry over the flotilla not the blockade. that post was talking specifically about the blockade. unless you want to post about the blockade regarding a post talking about a blockade, or a post talking about the flotilla and respond about the flotilla, don't respond at all.

 

[Lemon law]

Once again, FreshGearDude you compound your error by stating, "You have no defense and want to start talking about a different subject.


People were angry over the flotilla not the blockade. "

At the end of the day we have to hope that people can somewhat respect different opinions, but when we cannot even share the principles of common shared human logic, all hope is somewhat lost. '

And your statement flies in the face of all logic, why do you think the aid flotilla was sent in the first place if ALL people are angry at only the flotilla?

The flotilla side has a Nobel peace prize winner, and that ain't exactly chopped liver.

 

[PJABBER]

LOL! The Palestinians are violent, jealous, spoiled children that prefer to go for generations living off welfare. Israel is their whipping-boy, blamed and punished for the actions of their enemies. Israel's enemies are like evil step sisters, eager to point out the whipping-boy's small missteps while being wholly oblivious to their own much greater misdeeds and rude treatment.

The issue at hand is that the whipping-boy, nurtured in the hell of WWII Europe, struck out to make his fortune on a miserable spit of land that no one else wanted or cared about. Until he arrived, and then the Arab jealousy could not be contained, nor the "Palestinian" self-hate be restrained. He won his right to that miserable spit of land and also to the land spoils of modest conquest as a prize torn from ever eager enemies.

Each generation makes their mark. The ever corrupt welfare Palestinians by their failure to get along with anyone and their violence toward themselves and Israel. And Israel by an interminable adolescence, caught between being a new State and one recognized by all.

But the world changes and old enemies are not the most worrisome in an age of weapons of mass destruction. A distant, hostile Iran has aims to destroy the State of Israel as a means of establishing their right to control Islam. And the whipping boy's proximate neighbors must wonder who Iran will target after. Or who will be the next to ally with Israel if they should neuter Iran.

 

[kylebisme]

Opinions are not legally binding.

Sure, but the laws cited by the UNHCR are legally binding, while your handwaving at that is mindless drivel.

Is there a legal finding or just the UNHRC opinion?

If I came and set up a perimeter around your house to limit your access to food and such, would you contend that you couldn't rightly call my actions illegal until a court ruled as much?

They are not blockading humanitarian aid...

They most certainly are blockading all sorts of humanitarian aid, as evidenced by the fact that:

Israel slightly relaxed the terms of its three-year blockade of Gaza on Wednesday, removing snack foods, juice, soda and spices from the list of banned items.

 

[flavio]

The blockade is legal until a ruling body finds otherwise. That is how the real world works.

But, since you're stuck in Flavioland...

Not how it works, only in Palehorseland.

Canada could not blockade the US and call it legal until a ruling body finds otherwise.

 

[Uthilos]

This is an interesting opinion by Amitakh Stanford. The only chance for peace is a two state solution. Both the Palestinian state and the Israeli state need to have a seaport and continuous borders. The neighbouring muslim nations should think about granting some land to the Palestinians. However, now we are getting to the crucial part, which is Jerusalem. Jerusalem needs to be either wholly in Palestine or wholly in Israel. A "Berlin Wall" will not work, there would be continued friction and threats of war. Both Israelis and Palestinians are religious, so they should be open to an unconventional solution:

http://www.flyingbuffaloes7.net/keluar9.html

O Jerusalem, take heed. The current situation in Israel is untenable; there is an unending conflict between the Palestinians and the Jews. Jewish inhabitants distrust the Palestinians, and vice versa. The age-old struggle between them has cost many lives, much hardship and untold sorrow. The conflict has generated tremendous anger, hatred and distrust – forcing them to live under a single umbrella has proven to be a formula for unending friction.

. . .

Jerusalem is a major sticking point in regard to a two-state solution, which affects not only the parties, but peace in the region. Both sides have long-standing reasons to be inflexible regarding the city. Both sides have long historical, cultural and religious reasons for their intransigence regarding Jerusalem. This has led many people to insist that the two-state solution have a shared Jerusalem. That is, severing Jerusalem in twain, part to one nation and part to another, or granting co-ownership of the city to both nation states. Are either of these proposals wise?

The twentieth century saw what happened when secular powers divided up Berlin into sections. The situation was so bellicose that the Berlin Wall was erected to section off the city. For decades, the Wall divided the people and caused tremendous misery until it was finally demolished.

The same mentality of erecting “Berlin Walls” is very active in modern-day Israel, as is seen by the walled-off sections of the West Bank. Fencing off sections of Berlin did not work, and it should not be encouraged in Jerusalem. Further, if there are national borders running through the city of Jerusalem, it will guarantee that there will be continued friction and bloodshed in the city.

It is understood that neither party wants to relinquish all rights to Jerusalem, but, in reality, to have lasting peace in the area, is there any other choice? I suggest that there is not. Many centuries of conflict support my position. Therefore, in my opinion, Jerusalem should either be wholly within the nation of Israel or wholly within the newly created Palestinian state. To accomplish this, one side or the other would necessarily have to relinquish Jerusalem voluntarily, if it is to be settled amicably. It should be realized that the side that vacates Jerusalem should be amply compensated for it when boundaries for the two newly-formed nation states are drawn.

Clearly, both parties’ claims to Jerusalem are heavily based on religious grounds. If neither side will voluntarily relinquish the city, then, after solemn prayers, a lot should be cast over which nation state will house Jerusalem. Those who sincerely believe in the Divine should accept that the lot will result in the Divine’s will being carried out.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Once again, FreshGearDude you compound your error by stating, "You have no defense and want to start talking about a different subject.


People were angry over the flotilla not the blockade. "

At the end of the day we have to hope that people can somewhat respect different opinions, but when we cannot even share the principles of common shared human logic, all hope is somewhat lost. '

And your statement flies in the face of all logic, why do you think the aid flotilla was sent in the first place if ALL people are angry at only the flotilla?

The flotilla side has a Nobel peace prize winner, and that ain't exactly chopped liver.

A nobel peace prize is exactly chopped liver these days, in case you haven't been following. Arafat got the peace prize. FUCKING ARAFAT. Obama got it for doing NOTHING.

And I think we've covered this: The aid flotilla was sent to draw international attention to the blockade in favor of Gaza. It's another ploy by terrorist-supporting nations to open Israel to more attacks.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Not how it works, only in Palehorseland.

Canada could not blockade the US and call it legal until a ruling body finds otherwise.

Erm, Canada could blockade the US and claim it's legal until a ruling body found otherwise. Then again, if the US was lobbing missiles into Canada on a regular basis they would have a valid reason to blockade the US. The simple and plain fact is that Israel has had this blockade for years and not a single authoritative ruling body has determined that it's illegal. Not one. In fact, many legal scholars have pointed out precisely why is it NOT illegal.

But continue to ignore all the facts getting in the way of your argument. For folks like you and Kyle, facts are nothing more than a minor inconvenience to forward arguments based on personal biases and emotion.

 

[Lemon law]

I submit, as a his first post, Uthilos has a right to his own opinion, but IMHO, the best alternative may be for all the major religions of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism to do something that has never been done, to fairly share the city of Jerusalem that is almost sacred to all three religions.

Because as a larger history of Israel, Islam, Christianity, and now again the Jews have compiled a miserable musical chair track record as they try to pig it all. None of them have ever lasted in dominance for more than about 120 years, and then some other power takes over and its rinse and repeat.

Do we want a holy land or a land shot full of bullet holes. Pig it all never worked and maybe never will.

Nor is comparing the city of Berlin to Jerusalem is a bad analogy, Berlin was all German before and its all German again.

 

[Noobtastic]

Nor is comparing the city of Berlin to Jerusalem is a bad analogy, Berlin was all German before and its all German again.

what are you blabbering about?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Because as a larger history of Israel, Islam, Christianity, and now again the Jews have compiled a miserable musical chair track record as they try to pig it all. None of them have ever lasted in dominance for more than about 120 years, and then some other power takes over and its rinse and repeat.

I seem to recall that a Mosque sits on the Dome of the Rock, once the site of Solomon's Temple. If those dastardly Jews really wanted to "pig it all," as you rhetorically claim, they'd have torn down that Mosque by now and built a Synagogue in its place. I wonder, if that situation were reversed, would that still hold true?

I guess that points out why I'm more partial to Israel rather than the Palestinians. I ask myself who has been more willing to share this alleged Holy Land steeped in such a long history of occupations by so many and currently the answer does not come up as Palestinians. Their all or nothing attitude has taken them into the abyss they currently reside in and that attitude will continue to keep them down until cooler heads prevail amongst them.

 

[kylebisme]

This is an interesting opinion by Amitakh Stanford.

The only thing interesting about his opinion is how utterly detached from reality it is. For a bit of reality, I recommend watching this documentary.

 

[Lemon law]

Well at least TLC labels it as personal opinion in saying. "I guess that points out why I'm more partial to Israel rather than the Palestinians. I ask myself who has been more willing to share this alleged Holy Land steeped in such a long history of occupations by so many and currently the answer does not come up as Palestinians."

But in the larger 1800 year recent history of the the land of Israel, the two groups largely missing in action as rascals were the Jews and Palestinians. We had Roman rascals until they imploded, other rascals and until the Muslim expansion, then we had Muslim rule until the Christian popes tried a few crusades that came and went, finally the Ottomans took over until ousted by various European leaders like the Brits, and only in the last 62 years have the Jews and Palestinians become the contesting parties. Nor can we really single out Hamas, they did not even come into real existence before the failures of the past 20 years.

The catch 22 is that Israel can't long term pig all of Israel either, if Israel refuses to share it can never know any peace, a fact every group ruling the land of Israel learned by their own Darwin award extinction. A whole 62 years of Israeli hegemony, not too impressive when the run of the mill musical chair average is about 120 years. Especially when Israeli arrogance is being called into world wide disrepute, it is not smart on Israel's part.

 

[Noobtastic]

Well at least TLC labels it as personal opinion in saying. "I guess that points out why I'm more partial to Israel rather than the Palestinians. I ask myself who has been more willing to share this alleged Holy Land steeped in such a long history of occupations by so many and currently the answer does not come up as Palestinians."

And what about the Arab occupation LL?

Notice how all the historic synagogues have since been converted into mosques. Christian holy sites in Iraq turned into weapons depots. Jews cannot travel to Nablus sites, yet Muslims and Christians have unfettered access into Jerusalem.

In fact, Palestinians gained more access into Jerusalem when Israel took it over than under Jordan's occupation.

Israel had no territorial ambitions, and was more than willing to settle. Israel wanted peace in 1948, the Arabs said no. Israel wanted peace in 1967, the Arabs said no. Israel tried to secure a peace agreement with Lebanon and that was torpedoed by the Arabs because they didn't want to surrender.

The Arabs and Palestinians have themselves to blame for the occupation. Aggressors get occupied.

 

[Sclamoz]

1 hour of footage has been released.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwsMJmvS0AY

Edit: After watching most of this its clear attacking the soldiers was planned ahead of time by the idiots on the boat and they got what was coming coming to them.

 

[Harvey]

.
.
Clearly, both parties’ claims to Jerusalem are heavily based on religious grounds. If neither side will voluntarily relinquish the city, then, after solemn prayers, a lot should be cast over which nation state will house Jerusalem. Those who sincerely believe in the Divine should accept that the lot will result in the Divine’s will being carried out.

Bullshit. If the parties can't agree to share the common venu of their mutual "holy" sites, the best solution is to glaze it permanently with green glass, make it inaccessible to everyone and leave the petulant children to cry in milk and piss in their diapers.

And in case you missed it, the above is intended as sarcasm.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Well at least TLC labels it as personal opinion in saying. "I guess that points out why I'm more partial to Israel rather than the Palestinians. I ask myself who has been more willing to share this alleged Holy Land steeped in such a long history of occupations by so many and currently the answer does not come up as Palestinians."

But in the larger 1800 year recent history of the the land of Israel, the two groups largely missing in action as rascals were the Jews and Palestinians. We had Roman rascals until they imploded, other rascals and until the Muslim expansion, then we had Muslim rule until the Christian popes tried a few crusades that came and went, finally the Ottomans took over until ousted by various European leaders like the Brits, and only in the last 62 years have the Jews and Palestinians become the contesting parties. Nor can we really single out Hamas, they did not even come into real existence before the failures of the past 20 years.

The catch 22 is that Israel can't long term pig all of Israel either, if Israel refuses to share it can never know any peace, a fact every group ruling the land of Israel learned by their own Darwin award extinction. A whole 62 years of Israeli hegemony, not too impressive when the run of the mill musical chair average is about 120 years. Especially when Israeli arrogance is being called into world wide disrepute, it is not smart on Israel's part.

Israeli "arrogance" is being called into disrepute by the same group of unhinged schmucks that always make loud farting noises whenever Israel is involved. Rational people can see this flotilla for exactly what it is...yet another political ploy that's meant to tug on the heart-strings of those who value propaganda-fueled, emotional knee-jerking over rational thought.

btw, why limit a breakdown of Israel's history to 1800 years? Anyone with a passing familiarity of that part of the world knows it goes back much further and 1800 years. Is it convenient for you to omit or ignore the history further back than that?

 

[Freshgeardude]

Once again, FreshGearDude you compound your error by stating, "You have no defense and want to start talking about a different subject.


People were angry over the flotilla not the blockade. "

At the end of the day we have to hope that people can somewhat respect different opinions, but when we cannot even share the principles of common shared human logic, all hope is somewhat lost. '

And your statement flies in the face of all logic, why do you think the aid flotilla was sent in the first place if ALL people are angry at only the flotilla?

The flotilla side has a Nobel peace prize winner, and that ain't exactly chopped liver.

sure this thread is about the flotilla, but my post was DIRECTLY related to the topic of the blockade, which is what this thread came to.


I am talking about the blockade, so if you do not have anything to refute my statements about the blockade, then do not try and start talking about the flotilla and change the topic.


HAHA nobel peace prize! what a joke these days. What in the WORLD did Obama do to deserve it? he send 30,000 more troops to afganistan to fight a war less than a week after receiving it! Nobel peace prizes are such a joke, and obama getting one really shows it.

 

[Lemon law]

TLC asks a somewhat valid question but I think I have a valid answer. Freely granted, Israeli Jews have at least a 4000 year history in the land of Israel, but the recent 1800 year history marks the beginning of a period called the second diaspora where Jewish power was totally broken by Rome. Because then, as Jewish defiance got on the last nerve of Rome, it expelled the Jews from the Holy land. And for most of the next 1800 years, except in small numbers, Jews were by in large missing from the land of Israel. And hence Israeli history was dominated by only Muslims and Christians squabbling over the Holy land.

And even on the day of the formation of the State of Israel, native born Palestinians and an admixture of various Arabs formed the majority of the population.

If we want to talk about the 2000 year period before the second diaspora, we again have have periods where Israeli Jews did not rule the land of Israel.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

TLC asks a somewhat valid question but I think I have a valid answer. Freely granted, Israeli Jews have at least a 4000 year history in the land of Israel, but the recent 1800 year history marks the beginning of a period called the second diaspora where Jewish power was totally broken by Rome. Because then, as Jewish defiance got on the last nerve of Rome, it expelled the Jews from the Holy land. And for most of the next 1800 years, except in small numbers, Jews were by in large missing from the land of Israel. And hence Israeli history was dominated by only Muslims and Christians squabbling over the Holy land.

And even on the day of the formation of the State of Israel, native born Palestinians and an admixture of various Arabs formed the majority of the population.

If we want to talk about the 2000 year period before the second diaspora, we again have have periods where Israeli Jews did not rule the land of Israel.

Maybe you should think about this period as the beginning of the 3rd diaspora then if labels are what you value?

Personally, I don't care. History has shown that those who have the most power are those that dominate the land they live on in the present and that hasn't changed since time immemorial.

 

[werepossum]

I seem to recall that a Mosque sits on the Dome of the Rock, once the site of Solomon's Temple. If those dastardly Jews really wanted to "pig it all," as you rhetorically claim, they'd have torn down that Mosque by now and built a Synagogue in its place. I wonder, if that situation were reversed, would that still hold true?

I guess that points out why I'm more partial to Israel rather than the Palestinians. I ask myself who has been more willing to share this alleged Holy Land steeped in such a long history of occupations by so many and currently the answer does not come up as Palestinians. Their all or nothing attitude has taken them into the abyss they currently reside in and that attitude will continue to keep them down until cooler heads prevail amongst them.

Not to mention that Judaism has since the exodus considered Israel its only Holy Land and Christianity sprang from Israel, especially Jerusalem. Compare that to Islam, whose prophet never even visited it except for making claim to have flown over it in a dream. The only reason Israel is holy to the Muslims is that all ground ever held or inhabited by Muslims they consider to be rightfully theirs in perpetuity.

 

[flavio]

Not to mention that Judaism has since the exodus considered Israel its only Holy Land and Christianity sprang from Israel, especially Jerusalem. Compare that to Islam, whose prophet never even visited it except for making claim to have flown over it in a dream. The only reason Israel is holy to the Muslims is that all ground ever held or inhabited by Muslims they consider to be rightfully theirs in perpetuity.

http://www.time.com/time/2001/jerusalem/islam.html

I believe any historical claims are bullshit though.