Zionist piracy

Status
Not open for further replies.
pjdude1219 said:
since you show yous facts could you please explain how close range shots to the back and back of the head is self defense. I mean I would love an explanation on how people aledgedely attacking the soldiers, an act that requires them to be facing the soldiers, get shot in the back when the soldiers defend them selves.
Click to expand...

It was a chaotic situation with no front lines. A soldier can defend another soldier by shooting someone in the back of the head. It's much better than if they are facing you and could therefore react.
 
to Lucysnow

Please read post 1070 again. I did not blame either side. You are selectively reading that I blame Israel as you are a defender of Israel. I am trying to solve the problem. To aid your understanding, although I hate to speak of blame, I will now state that both have plenty of blame to be ashamed of. What I said was:

"My concern is that both sides have so much hate that they can not think straight - act in the own self interest."

There is not a word about blame in my post 1070. Both sides have done many things they should not have, but there is little to be achieved by focusing on blame - That is for the biased to one side to do, not one trying to improve the situation.

It is well past my bed time in Brazil, so I only quickly skimmed your post. I will read it more carefully tomorrow.
 
Billy T said:
to Lucysnow

Please read post 1070 again. I did not blame either side. You are selectively reading that I blame Israel as you are a defender of Israel. I am trying to solve the problem.
Click to expand...

You are part of the problem.
 
Billy T said:

"My concern is that both sides have so much hate that they can not think straight - act in the own self interest."

There is not a word about blame in my post 1070. Both sides have done many things they should not have, but there is little to be achieved by focusing on blame - That is for the biased to one side to do, not one trying to improve the situation.
Click to expand...


Sorry. The post came across that way as you only had suggestions for one side but not the other which is the problem of 'both sides'.

Have a good night Billy T
 
@mordea

If you are not contesting that Hamas is belligerent then you have no grounds to say that the blockade isn't legal, as you recognize Hamas as being the head of a belligerent state.

You think Israeli's are nazis and yet they have committed no genocide. Sorry we will just have to disagree on that one. Hamas seems to have a 'mien kampf' final solution written into their charter so they to me are nazi's in the making.

Again go back and read the title of this thread. If you want to discuss settlements go and start a thread I AM ARGUING THAT THE BLOCKADE AND THE BOARDING OF THE FLOTILLA WAS LEGAL!!! So please try and keep up here. We all know the settlements are a pain in the ass but what are you going to do about it is what I was asking you before. Stating international law and having the power to enforce international law are two different things and you obviously have never read any of my posts on this subject and that of settlements or you would understand my position on this.

Still Mordea in response to MY POSTS you have yet to show any evidence that the blockade or the boarding of the flotilla as being 'illegal'. Do you accuse Egypt of also engaging in an 'illegal' blockade? Your argument is rubbish but at least have the balls you borrowed from your mama to bring some evidence to the table.

You are failing to make your point somehow. When I say 'the blockade is upped to make life' I am saying that that is what the strategy entails to encourage the people to turn away from the government they support. Now whether this works or not is another story but blockades and life under sanctions are not meant to be all 'comfy cozy'. No where do you show the law and this opinion to be at odds or in contradiction. Try being less emotive and showing some evidence outside of your 'I hate israel and little lucysnow for contradicting what I say' kind of thing.

I re-copied because you seem to have a problem reading something thoroughly the first time around.

Again (this is also a re-post) don't respond to my post until you can provide outside evidence (something other than your opinion) that the blockade and the boarding of the flotilla as anything but legal. If you can't do that then go and waste some other persons time as I won't respond to your pointless jibber jabber.

Now go and do some homework you can start by learning what an opinion piece is. The Reuters article asks different questions from a number of experts. This isn't about one person editorializing or asking one persons opinion. It asks for legality, what is understood under the law.
 
lucy said:
If the people of Gaza are so stupid as to follow Hamas to their own demise then best of british luck to them!
Click to expand...
The people of Gaza have been under the Israeli jackboot for many years now - more than a generation. They have lost much of their land and water, been evicted from their lands and homes and fenced into ghettos, have been and are being badly mistreated in ways very few people would forgive or forget.

They don't have much choice in whom to follow - all of their governments have attracted Israeli aggression. And their own demise is not a matter of following anyone, but living where Israel wants to settle its own people and drinking water Israel wants for its own people and so forth.
 
iceaura said:
The people of Gaza have been under the Israeli jackboot for many years now - more than a generation. They have lost much of their land and water, been evicted from their lands and homes and fenced into ghettos, have been and are being badly mistreated in ways very few people would forgive or forget.

They don't have much choice in whom to follow - all of their governments have attracted Israeli aggression. And their own demise is not a matter of following anyone, but living where Israel wants to settle its own people and drinking water Israel wants for its own people and so forth.
Click to expand...

Well the blockade has been for three years now, that is certainly not 'more than a generation'. Yes they have lost their land. Yes they are being treated miserably. But don't YOU forget that this treatment came about because of direct attacks ie. suicide bombings, car bombings and rocket launches. Why doesn't Hamas show its good side and simply renounce its rhetoric which stipulates that they will renounce violence and accept the right of Israel to exist? Surely they would do that to ease the suffering of their people. I have pointed out before that when the UN and the whole bloody international community sanctioned Iraq into poverty that not only was it a long blockade but it punished the people collectively to the point of the disintegration of their daily life. Now if you are going to try and get me to argue that this is right i will not. What I am saying is that no one argued that it was an illegal undertaking. The blockade against Gaza is not illegal but it is also not working so as Electric has been saying something else needs to be done, such as easing the blockade and leaving Hamas to its own devices. I understand more and more what he means by that. But don't pretend as if Israel is behaving in isolation, if you want people to understand the plight of the palestinians you also have to see the situation from the point of view of the Israeli's.

All the governments have attracted Israeli aggression? So what was life under the PLO? Are you saying they didn't show aggression towards israel. Why didn't they vote for fatah? Why isn't the west bank under a blockade? Again you have to see it in context. Why did Hamas actively fight fatah? Too moderate?
 
Here's some more information and opinion about the legality or otherwise of Israel's blockade of Gaza.

First, here's what the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has to say:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Governmen...lockade_Gaza-Legal_background_31-May-2010.htm

And here's an independent analysis of the international legal issues - well worth a read:

http://opiniojuris.org/2010/06/02/why-is-israels-blockade-of-gaza-legal/

For links to this and other relevant opinions, see here also:

http://www.ejiltalk.org/legal-issues-raised-by-israels-blockade-of-gaza/
---

Highlight from the second linked article:

Israel’s defense of the blockade thus appears to create a serious dilemma for it. Insofar as Israel insists that it is not currently occupying Gaza, it cannot plausibly claim that it is involved in an IAC [International Armed Conflict] with Hamas. And if it is not currently involved in an IAC with Hamas, it is difficult to see how it can legally justify the blockade of Gaza. Its blockade of Gaza, therefore, seems to depend on its willingness to concede that it is occupying Gaza and is thus in an IAC with Hamas. But Israel does not want to do that, because it would then be bound by the very restrictive rules of belligerent occupation in the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Click to expand...

In particular, Israel would have to give Geneva Convention rights to Hamas soldiers - something it obviously wants to avoid at all costs.

Looks to me like a legal catch-22 for Israel.
 
James R said:
Here's some more information and opinion about the legality or otherwise of Israel's blockade of Gaza.
Click to expand...

Interesting links, James. I'll have a look. I agree on the Catch-22 scenario. State or no state? Can't be both, or presumably not.
 
Update on the MV Rachel Corrie:

Apparently, the Israelis are stalking it, but they have NOT boarded it.

"They have not been boarded. They are being followed," said Greta Berlin of the Free Gaza movement, who added that contact with those aboard the Rachel Corrie was intermittent. The group had based its earlier statement about a boarding on an unconfirmed report from an Israeli radio station, Berlin said.

Al Jazeera television quoted a journalist aboard the vessel saying: "We can see some Israeli ships a little away from us.

"They are following us. There has been no contact."
Click to expand...

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...ed-gaza-bound-aid-ship-rachel-corrie-1.294265
 
spidergoat said:
It was a chaotic situation with no front lines. A soldier can defend another soldier by shooting someone in the back of the head. It's much better than if they are facing you and could therefore react.
Click to expand...

No soldier would take that shot. the risk of missing and hitting the person you trying to save is to high.
 
From James second link:

The first crisis occurred when England issued a proclamation of neutrality, which rested upon the logic of the Union’s declared blockade. According to English reasoning, although Lincoln proclaimed the rebels to be insurrectionists and thus not recognizable under international law as a belligerent power engaged in war, his declared blockade was an act of war, which would have to be conducted against a sovereign state. Thus Lincoln had actually granted belligerency status to the Confederacy and thereby forced foreign powers to do the same. By proclaiming neutrality, England afforded the Confederacy the status of a belligerent power. Other European nations followed England’s lead. Belligerency status gave the Confederacy the right, according to international law… to contract loans and to purchase arms from neutral nations. It also allowed England to provide safe harbors for both Union and Confederate warships and merchant vessels, to build blockade runners and warships for the Confederacy, and to formally debate in Parliament the merits of active intervention.
Click to expand...

Thats an interesting Catch-22
 
I'd say they have a right to be, a blockade is an act of war. So, can they buy weapons then?

I can just see the Israelis agreeing to that and to the Geneva Conventions.
 
S.A.M. said:
I'd say they have a right to be, a blockade is an act of war. So, can they buy weapons then?
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand the case you are making. By considering Gaza/Palestine as a belligerent nation, they could presumably be legally blockaded.
 
S.A.M. said:
I'd say they have a right to be, a blockade is an act of war. So, can they buy weapons then?

I can just see the Israelis agreeing to that and to the Geneva Conventions.
Click to expand...

And some would say that the Israeli's also have a right to be. See? There is no resolution to that when both parties have created the mess together. A blockade is an act of war? What of launching rockets into Israel? Isn't that also an act of war? And what came first? The launching of rockets.

The Israeli's will no more explain it than the Americans explain their bombing campaign in Iraq or their use of torture or their refusal to permit their troops or leaders to face crimes against humanity.

This is what I don't get, not just with you but everyone. I mean we speak in UN jingoism when we know full well that the UN doesn't have the power to enforce good behaviour at the local ale house:rolleyes:

And yet we assume the jibber jabber that comes out of that institution actually means something when it comes to hostile nations or situations that they have absolutely no power to interfere with or resolve without a whole lot of hand-wringing resolutions and pithy reports that gather dust in their massive library.
The security council alone should give you an indication of who controls where the UN places its foot or more precisely its troops and resources.
 
And some would say that the Israeli's also have a right to be
Click to expand...

Only someone who thinks Israelis have a right to occupy Palestine because of the Old Testament, hubris or whatever justification people use to occupy land and terrorise the natives.

Hamas on the other hand is guided by the primal instinct for self defense. They live where they fight back in self defense.
 
No they have the right because they have built a state, that gives them the right. No one sits around anymore harping over whether the Han have the right to build an apartment complex in Tibet or an old retirement home in California for example (the latter was once all Mexico). What you won't accept and what many in the world do accept, is that its DONE. There will be no dismantling of the jewish state. The land is not going to be returned and Jewish people moving somewhere else, it just not going to happen. Palestine is not what Palestine was!

As for Hamas after reading their charter I would say their entire existence surrounds removing Jews from Israel not simply 'self-defence'. The Israeli's are also claiming 'self-defence'. The two together makes up the chorus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top