Zionist piracy

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Actually, two countries have already deported Israeli diplomats over the passport incident.

There is a distinct move in the world in the expectation that Israel will behave appropriately. Now, their continued refusal will result in further isolation and loss of support from Western nations. They are alienating themselves. And it will continue if they keep going as they are going.

Israel had a massive chance to gain a moral victory with this flotilla. I mean think about it, how long can they justify banning things like coriander and children's toys and paper? As one commentator has said in Israel, it is embarrassing and it should be embarrassing. The pressure is going to keep mounting in regards to the blockade. And that pressure will now fall squarely on Israel's head. Now, they can continue justifying banning "coriander and houseplants", or they can do the right thing by the people who are suffering in this.

So what? There are also a number of nations that doesn't recognize Israel at all. You don't really believe sending an ambassador home is really more than a political show do you? Israel has not yet alienated western nations. What did you think when Turkey compromised with the US and toned down its language against Israel? They had a right to demand full justice and they backed right the fuck down. As long as they have the US supporting the blockade in Gaza they have all the support they need. Who cares after all what Norway has to say?:shrug:

And again that is precisely the problem and why the UN sucks big donkey dick.

 

[pjdude1219]

Maybe we can start with : Indiscriminate targeting of civilians for political gain.



Does Hamas take responsibility for rockets fired into Israel?

As the elected government, such a thing would appear to be an attack on a neighbouring state, wouldn't it? Israel, then, would have a right to self-defence against such attacks. Moveover, it would be well within its rights to declare war.

not entirely sure but if my understanding of international law is correct while they may not be a valid target they(Israeli civilians) may not have the same protections as other civilians. international law prohibits using civilians for military gain which is what Israel did in 48 and has done since. they push their civilian population onto occupied land to try and prevent both political and military attempts from those living there to have control of it.

 

[pjdude1219]

Last I heard, the borders were disputed.

true Israel disputes the palestinian existing in palestine

 

[pjdude1219]

So what? There are also a number of nations that doesn't recognize Israel at all. You don't really believe sending an ambassador home is really more than a political show do you? Israel has not yet alienated western nations. As long as they have the US supporting the blockade in Gaza they have all the support they need. Who cares after all what Norway has to say?:shrug:

And again that is precisely the problem and why the UN sucks big donkey dick.

True the difference is people like me wish to change that you want it to stay the same.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

They have, several times. In fact it took 40 years of violent occupation before the Palestinians turned violent and even then they have constantly adhered to many many ceasefires, over 70% of which have been broken by Israel. They have gone so far as to accept only 20% of their original homeland [not having reached the magic 2% demographic at which their opinions become irrelevant], accept the 1967 borders, accept the European colonisers which require them to abdicate their right to not live under foreign occupation.

It makes no difference.

They have not Sam. What was this for example?


updated 6:34 p.m. ET Jan. 9, 2009

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Israeli jets and ground troops hammered at Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip and Islamic militants fired barrages of rockets at southern Israeli cities Friday, ignoring a U.N. resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire after two weeks of combat.

Israel launched a heavy air bombardment Dec. 27 in response to intensified rocket fire that has disrupted life in southern Israel. A week later, ground troops moved in, with artillery and tank fire that has contributed to a surge in civilian casualties that continued Friday on Gaza's ruined streets.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28404637/

If Hamas engages with Israel militarily, Israel will react with all its military might.

 

[nirakar]

They could start by ceasing using terrorism as a political tactic. Don't you think?

Then what? Israel might give Gaza it's freedom if Gaza does nothing as Israel displaces more Palestinians from the West Bank. I don't believe Israel has finished it's ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Should the Palestinians just say "this is our fate and now we should forget what Israel has stolen from us and what they will soon steal from us"?

Gaza is not likely to be economically viable even if free. There are just too many people there. I don't think a bunch of people with PTSD will be able to turn Gaza into a beach resort destination. If the Palestinians are given freedom in Gaza and they let the world stop feeling guilty about what was done to them the world will stop sending aid to them and they will be very hungry. The less connected Gazans are already hungry.

 

[CheskiChips]

Cheski:

I'm sure that if you google "international law", within 2 minutes you'll find a wikipedia article pitched at a suitable level that introduces you to the term "customary international law" and/or "peremptory norm".

Go do the basic legwork and get back to me if you still want to debate the issue.

You're the one who hasn't done the legwork, there is no

Stop presuming that you've done the leg work and I haven't, I stated what I did because I knew it was correct.

Here's a brief on embargo laws: http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/202/42346.html

I also briefed the law of the seas: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm

Perhaps Yale is up to your exceedingly high standards of describing international law, here's a brief from a professor on the matter.

"The real hardships of capture at sea, to which a large part of the world is not, even now, reconciled, are those affecting neutrals. If an enemy's ship at sea contains neutral cargo, the neutral must submit to have his goods taken into port for adjudication, and must of course forego opportunities of obtaining a favourable market, though his goods are not liable to capture."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/int05.asp

So can you provide evidence that this 19th century precedent has been modified in regards to embargo?

I'll ask...can you show one single document at all which implies guilt for boarding a ship outside of prescribed borders in the case of a blockade? I doubt it. The burden of proof is upon you.

I will also take some offense to your "sideline cheerleader" comment; I live in Israel 2 months out of the year...you're a side line instigator.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Look a bit further back, like Nov 6

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kanwisher/reigniting-violence-how-d_b_155611.html

Sorry, what do you mean?

 

[S.A.M.]

Sorry, what do you mean?

Here:

They have not Sam. What was this for example?


updated 6:34 p.m. ET Jan. 9, 2009

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Israeli jets and ground troops hammered at Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip and Islamic militants fired barrages of rockets at southern Israeli cities Friday, ignoring a U.N. resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire after two weeks of combat.

Israel launched a heavy air bombardment Dec. 27 in response to intensified rocket fire that has disrupted life in southern Israel. A week later, ground troops moved in, with artillery and tank fire that has contributed to a surge in civilian casualties that continued Friday on Gaza's ruined streets.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28404637/

Look a bit further back, like Nov 4, when Israelis killed 6 Palestinians and broke the ceasefire. Also see Hamas efforts to extend the ceasefire and stop the blockade rejected by Israel

How did the recent ceasefire unravel? The mainstream media in the US and Israel places the blame squarely on Hamas. Indeed, a massive barrage of Palestinian rockets were fired into Israel in November and December, and ending this rocket fire is the stated goal of the current Israeli invasion of Gaza. However, this account leaves out crucial facts.

First, and most importantly, the ceasefire was remarkably effective: after it began in June 2008, the rate of rocket and mortar fire from Gaza dropped to almost zero, and stayed there for four straight months (see Figure 1, from a factsheet produced by the Israeli consulate in NYC). So much for the widespread view, exemplified in yesterday's New York Times editorial that: "There is little chance of restraining Hamas without dealing with its patrons in Syria and Iran." Instead, the data shows clearly that Hamas can indeed control the violence if it so chooses, and sometimes it does, for long periods of time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kanwisher/reigniting-violence-how-d_b_155611.html

US media didn't report Israeli ceasefire violation
Jim Lobe and Ali Gharib, The Electronic Intifada, 8 January 2009

WASHINGTON (IPS) - Consumed by coverage of the 4 November presidential election, US mainstream media ignored a key Israeli military attack on a Hamas target that some Palestinians claim marked the effective end of the ceasefire between the two sides and set the stage for the current round of bloodletting.

While the major US news wire Associated Press (AP) reported that the attack, in which six members of Hamas's military wing were killed by Israeli ground forces, threatened the ceasefire, its report was carried by only a handful of small newspapers around the country.

The 4 November raid -- and the escalation that followed -- also went unreported by the major US network and cable television new programs, according to a search of the Nexis database for all English-language news coverage between 4 to 7 November.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10140.shtml

Israel Rejected Hamas Ceasefire Offer in December
By Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Jan 9, 2009 (IPS) - Contrary to Israel's argument that it was forced to launch its air and ground offensive against Gaza in order to stop the firing of rockets into its territory, Hamas proposed in mid-December to return to the original Hamas-Israel ceasefire arrangement, according to a U.S.-based source who has been briefed on the proposal.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45350

Its all in the public domain

 

[S.A.M.]

Also note that all through the ceasefire which Hamas maintained, Israel was preparing for the Gaza massacre.

IAF strike followed months of planning
Gathering intelligence, disinformation played key role in strike at Hamas in Gaza.
By Barak Ravid

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/iaf-strike-followed-months-of-planning-1.260363

And the first casualties were cop cadets at their graduation ceremony and children on their way to school. 225 of them killed within the first 24 hours.

Israel yesterday launched its largest raid on Gaza with two waves of air attacks that killed at least 225 people and injured more than 700, according to Palestinian doctors.

Children on their way home from school and policemen parading for a graduation ceremony were the principal victims of a bloody few hours that left the territory in flames.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5404501.ece

This is what they were planning through the ceasefire.

 

[nirakar]

Israel launched a heavy air bombardment Dec. 27 in response to intensified rocket fire that has disrupted life in southern Israel.

Why does the Western media always say Israel was "responding" or "retaliating" for something Hamas did when the western media never says that Hamas was "responding" to something Israel did?

When Hamas sends rockets they claim to be "responding" and their excuses for resorting to violence in response to recent Israeli actions are every bit as good as Israel's excuses for resorting to violence; but there is a double standard in the reporting.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Sam

In regards to post #653

The Huffington Post article said this:

On November 4th, Israel killed a Palestinian, an event that was followed by a volley of mortars fired from Gaza. Immediately after that, an Israeli air strike killed six more Palestinians. Then a massive barrage of rockets was unleashed, leading to the end of the ceasefire.

A Palestinian was killed Sam. One Palestinian led to a 'volley of mortars'. If Hamas is going to react like that over the death of one Palestinian ( the article doesn't even give any details of what lead to this killing) then they can never ever reach peace. You cannot bring on full warfare against a major power because of one death and still pretend to have political savvy or tactical wisdom. In other words the article proves my point. Hamas has to renounce violence.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Why does the Western media always say Israel was "responding" or "retaliating" for something Hamas did when the western media never says that Hamas was "responding" to something Israel did?

When Hamas sends rockets they claim to be "responding" and their excuses for resorting to violence in response to recent Israeli actions are every bit as good as Israel's excuses for resorting to violence; but there is a double standard in the reporting.

Well according to the link Sam offered from the Huffington Post they did indicate that Hamas was reacting to something Israel did

 

[S.A.M.]

Well according to the link Sam offered from the Huffington Post they did indicate that Hamas was reacting to something Israel did

And since Israel is still bombing Gaza and killing people, who is reacting to whom? Even as the dust settled on Cast Lead I, Israelis have begun planning for Cast Lead II

Some people in our leadership silently accept this conclusion. But there is no lack of voices – both in the leadership and in the street - which talk openly about a “Cast Lead 2” as being just a matter of time.

A saying attributed to Bismarck goes: Fools learn from their own experience, clever people learn from the experience of others. Where does that leave us?

http://www.homepagedaily.com/Pages/article8717-uri-avnerys-column---cast-lead-2.aspx

Israel bombs Gaza in night raid wounding two seriouslyShare/Bookmark

Published: 26th May 2010 09:39:16

http://www.londonwired.co.uk/articl...mbs-Gaza-in-night-raid-wounding-two-seriously

Gaza, May 29, 2010 (Pal Telegraph) – Israeli warplane (F16) targeted today Gaza’s former International Airport in Rafah, in southern Gaza Strip, and a blacksmith workshop in eastern Gaza, no injuries were reported.

The Israeli warplane bombed the airport with nine missiles targeted the abandoned buildings of the airport.

The Israeli warplanes have targeted the airport many times which destroyed it completely.

http://www.paltelegraph.com/palestine/gaza-strip/6186-israel-bombs-gazas-airport

On Tuesday night, Israeli F-16 fighter jets bombed and destroyed a metal workshop and a sports club in the Gaza Strip along with several other locations they claimed belonged to Hamas. Gaza's international airport was also hit.

The heavy duty missiles used destroyed a significant number of Palestinian homes and shops as well as shattering nearby doors and windows. 15 civilians were hit by shrapnel suffering various degrees of injury from minor cuts to severe wounding.

http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/news/middle-east/1062-israel-bombs-gaza

So tell me, what should Hamas do?

 

[nirakar]

Well according to the link Sam offered from the Huffington Post they did indicate that Hamas was reacting to something Israel did

The Huffington Post is a leading website aimed at the American left 30%. They are not what I think of when I say "Western media".

 

[S.A.M.]

@Sam

In regards to post #653

The Huffington Post article said this:

On November 4th, Israel killed a Palestinian, an event that was followed by a volley of mortars fired from Gaza. Immediately after that, an Israeli air strike killed six more Palestinians. Then a massive barrage of rockets was unleashed, leading to the end of the ceasefire.

A Palestinian was killed Sam. One Palestinian led to a 'volley of mortars'. If Hamas is going to react like that over the death of one Palestinian ( the article doesn't even give any details of what lead to this killing) then they can never ever reach peace. You cannot bring on full warfare against a major power because of one death and still pretend to have political savvy or tactical wisdom. In other words the article proves my point. Hamas has to renounce violence.

The volley of mortars was not by Hamas. It was some fringe group. Hamas maintained the ceasefire and tried to stop the fringe groups from reacting. And even after Israel killed the Palestinian, asked for an extension of the ceasefire in December. I believe if you access the IDF site in Nancy's article it gives the details. I think it was some Salafi group that fired the mortars. They are known enemies of Hamas in Gaza.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566740,00.html

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

And since Israel is still bombing Gaza and killing people, who is reacting to whom? Even as the dust settled on Cast Lead I, Israelis have begun planning for Cast Lead II


So tell me, what should Hamas do?

That's a good question isn't it? Who is reacting to whom? The point is that tactics without strategy leads to a quick death (the art of war). Hamas, not to mention the PLO, didn't have a coherent strategy towards peace (if it is peace they wanted which is questionable), they only use tactics that allow the israeli government to act with full force. I'm not a pacifist Sam, I think you know that already, so I see violent engagement as a tactic and I also see pacifism as a tactic not a way of life (on either side). There is a time to fight but if we look at their position historically every time someone tries to deal with Israel militarily they lose. Its as simple as that. Hamas needs to change its agenda thereby changing its tactics if they want anything for their people at all. I mean this is the aim right, to help the Palestinian people live a quality of life free from fear and violence so they can build a civil society without hinderance from Israel or anyone else, I mean this is what the world wants for these people. Well if this is the goal then going to war with Israel over the death of one person isn't going to get them there.

I would suggest the following (since you asked):

1. Change the rhetoric towards Israel and publicly announce this in a forum like the UN for example so that its internationally recognized (that would put Israel in a very uncomfortable arena)

2. Request a different mediator. They need to recognize that the US isn't doing them any favors and that the US is biased. They should request the help of a nation far removed from the results like Norway for example, a neutral country. If the Israeli's disagree it would leave them looking like the black wall they've become. If they refuse then opposition could simply decide not to work with the Americans while remaining quite clear that they are open for dialogue with Israel proper. Take the US out of the equation in terms of brokering peace.

3. They should resist violence no matter what (never works in their interest)

4. Instead of talking about land focus on the human rights situation (there are many grassroots orgs that are very good at that in regards to the Palestinian situation and it sets a different tone).

5. Decide what is actually achievable. So for example what is more important, having a key like a noose around ones neck talking of the lost land of ones great-grandparents? Or being a citizen of a nation where they can fight for their rights on the ground of civil human rights? I believe its the latter. Its the latter that's achievable not the former. The former will have them crying in despair for many a generation.

 

[S.A.M.]

They've already done all of the above, did you notice?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

They've already done all of the above, did you notice?

Hamas has not done any of the above. Certainly not number 1-3

 

[James R]

nirakar:

Then what? Israel might give Gaza it's freedom if Gaza does nothing as Israel displaces more Palestinians from the West Bank. I don't believe Israel has finished it's ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Should the Palestinians just say "this is our fate and now we should forget what Israel has stolen from us and what they will soon steal from us"?

It seems a better alternative than to wait for annihilation. Moreover, if Palestinians claimed the moral high ground, they may get more international support. One major sticking point to a solution is the US's unwavering support of Israel no matter how much it flouts international law and basic standards of human decency.

Gaza is not likely to be economically viable even if free. There are just too many people there.

That's a separate issue, isn't it? The Palestinians will have to sort that out for themselves once they have borders that actually permit real trade.