Israeli blockade 'forces Palestinians to search rubbish dumps for food'

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Splendid. Please argue with WildCat, who appears to maintain the contrary.



But yes, all you said was, and I quote:

the IRA's political platform was the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms.​

Funny, isn't it, how the Catholics killed people who were against "the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms", and the Protestants killed people who were for "the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms".

Still, if you will condescend to explain to us what you mean by "not defined in absolutist religious terms", when speaking either of Northern Ireland or of Palestine, I shall be happy to tell you whether you are right or wrong ... and whether you are hastily backpedaling from an untenable position.

Birdstrike and Wildcat have not only abhorrent views they are way out of their depth in terms of both intellectual capacity and knowledge.

Remember than Birdstrike said that their aren't any Israelis in Gaza to ghettoize the Gazans - see my signature. This is the level you are dealing with.

 

[Skeptic]

Three points.

1). The idea that Hamas' REASON for bombing of cities is "reacting to the blockade" is nonsense. At most that's the current EXCUSE -- much like, every time the Nazis committed some atrocity, their propaganda claimed they were just "reacting" and "retaliating" to the "war crimes" or "terrorism" of the British or Russians or Czech resistance or whomever.

In reality, of course, Hamas bombed Israeli cities before the blockade, and, if it is lifted, will bombed them with renewed vigor after. That's becasue the REASON for the bombing -- as it makes 100% clear in its charter, speeches, TV, etc., etc. -- is Israel's very existence.

2). If a naval blockade of a terrorist entity hell-bent on your destruction by force is somehow illegitimate or a war crime, then obviously no naval blockade is ever legitimate -- and all navy personnel in the western hemisphere, from the civil war to today, are war criminals.

(Perhaps, it seems by the logic of some on this forum, a naval blockade per se is OK, as long as it does not, God forbid, cause those blockaded any serious hardship. We wouldn't want to hurt enemy nations when fighting a war, you know.)

This is absurd, and goes to show that, once more, it isn't the existence of a blockade in itself that raises hackles among the useful idiots, but the fact that it is Israel that does so against the world's "designated victims" -- the Palestinians. It is this holy victim status that must not be violated under any circumstances, no matter how openly and clearly their leadership expresses the goal of wiping the Jews off the map.

3). As for the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" argument -- apart from being a trite, and obviously false, cliche, if you insist on using it to describe Hamas, please use it accurately, so you'll be honest with yourself about whom you are supporting. To wit, say not, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", but:

"One man's holocaust denier is another man's freedom fighter"
"One man's believer and spreader of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' is a nother man's freedom fighter"
"One man's shooting at point-blank range a family of four, including two children and the pregnant mother, for being Jews, is another man's freedom fighting"
"One man's consistent bombing of random civilians for being Jews is another man's freedom fighting"
"One man's school curriculum which teaches children the most glorious thing in the world is to grow up to kill Jews is another man's freedom fighting"

That would be a far more accurate description, in this case. But hey, they're glorious freedom fighters, of the world's #1 designated victim group, so, hey, it just HAS to be their victims' fault.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

"One man's holocaust denier is another man's freedom fighter"
"One man's believer and spreader of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' is a nother man's freedom fighter"
"One man's shooting at point-blank range a family of four, including two children and the pregnant mother, for being Jews, is another man's freedom fighting"
"One man's consistent bombing of random civilians for being Jews is another man's freedom fighting"
"One man's school curriculum which teaches children the most glorious thing in the world is to grow up to kill Jews is another man's freedom fighting"

That would be a far more accurate description, in this case. But hey, they're glorious freedom fighters, of the world's #1 designated victim group, so, hey, it just HAS to be their victims' fault.

You really have got a big chip on your shoulder that the world is out to get Jews haven't you?

While no one would deny that racists exist in the world you really do get far too melodramatic and full of spin.

Never mind Hamas. What about the average and ordinary peace loving Palestinian who is simply fed up with being treated less than a dog?

They are not racist, they just want a life back.

And what about the average peace loving Israeli who doesn't agree with treating the Palestinians less than dogs because he is a human being and recognizes Palestinians as fellow human beings.

You could learn from such a person. So get off your Jew victimization soapbox for once and open your eyes that there are other victims in this world.

Why don't you go and live in Gaza for a year and see what it's like.

 

[DC]

Three points.

1). The idea that Hamas' REASON for bombing of cities is "reacting to the blockade" is nonsense. At most that's the current EXCUSE -- much like, every time the Nazis committed some atrocity, their propaganda claimed they were just "reacting" and "retaliating" to the "war crimes" or "terrorism" of the British or Russians or Czech resistance or whomever.

In reality, of course, Hamas bombed Israeli cities before the blockade, and, if it is lifted, will bombed them with renewed vigor after. That's becasue the REASON for the bombing -- as it makes 100% clear in its charter, speeches, TV, etc., etc. -- is Israel's very existence.

2). If a naval blockade of a terrorist entity hell-bent on your destruction by force is somehow illegitimate or a war crime, then obviously no naval blockade is ever legitimate -- and all navy personnel in the western hemisphere, from the civil war to today, are war criminals.

(Perhaps, it seems by the logic of some on this forum, a naval blockade per se is OK, as long as it does not, God forbid, cause those blockaded any serious hardship. We wouldn't want to hurt enemy nations when fighting a war, you know.)

This is absurd, and goes to show that, once more, it isn't the existence of a blockade in itself that raises hackles among the useful idiots, but the fact that it is Israel that does so against the world's "designated victims" -- the Palestinians. It is this holy victim status that must not be violated under any circumstances, no matter how openly and clearly their leadership expresses the goal of wiping the Jews off the map.

3). As for the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" argument -- apart from being a trite, and obviously false, cliche, if you insist on using it to describe Hamas, please use it accurately, so you'll be honest with yourself about whom you are supporting. To wit, say not, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", but:

"One man's holocaust denier is another man's freedom fighter"
"One man's believer and spreader of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' is a nother man's freedom fighter"
"One man's shooting at point-blank range a family of four, including two children and the pregnant mother, for being Jews, is another man's freedom fighting"
"One man's consistent bombing of random civilians for being Jews is another man's freedom fighting"
"One man's school curriculum which teaches children the most glorious thing in the world is to grow up to kill Jews is another man's freedom fighting"

That would be a far more accurate description, in this case. But hey, they're glorious freedom fighters, of the world's #1 designated victim group, so, hey, it just HAS to be their victims' fault.

and you claim i lost my moral compass?
we are actually talking about the innocent people that get punished by the blockade.

you support a punishment, that is not hindering the terrorists from getting rockets, it is hindering children and woman to get food.

I think someone placed a strong magnet next to your compass.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I think someone placed a strong magnet next to your compass.

It's a horrible viewpoint isn't it?

I dunno about magnet. Somebody welded his compass well away from morality.

He's blinkered by his paranoia that the world is anti-semitic.

 

[a_unique_person]

So why aren't they voted out?

There have to be elections. They have to choose between .....

 

[DC]

It's a horrible viewpoint isn't it?

I dunno about magnet. Somebody welded his compass well away from morality.

He's blinkered by his paranoia that the world is anti-semitic.

on the other hand. afaik is he living there.
he is one that might be hit oneday by such a rocket. I hope not.

So his conclusions are influenced by real fear and propably also haterd.

I know the same fear and the same hatred can be found on the other side. the fear is even bigger there.

 

[BirdStrike]

So, does it not then follow that the Palestinian population cannot be held responsible for what was imposed upon them by the terrorist Arafat?

The Palestinians could have voted for Third Way. Headed by a brilliant man Salam Fayyad and a group of respected Palestinian leaders and intellectuals. But they chose Hamas instead.

Come on, you cannot have your cake and eat it. If Arafat "quashed" the moderate parties, and "there was not enough time for a moderate Palestinian party to emerge", then the general population of Palestine are not to blame for not voting for that nonexistent moderate party which was quashed by Arafat and did not have enough time to emerge.

The Palestinians could have voted for Third Way. But the party never had time to build a decent demographic between Arafat's death in November 2004 and the Palestinian elections in January 2006. This new party was only able to form after Arafat died.

You may be correct in suggesting that I made a numerical error of 0.05%. Well done, you must be thrilled.

You didn't make a 0.05%"numerical error." You repeatedly typed 2007 when the elections were 2006. But nice 0.05% backpedal to minimize your ignorance on this subject.

Hey, hear Obama won in 2009? Or was it 2007? 2005? 2010? Gosh I forget.

Splendid. Please argue with WildCat, who appears to maintain the contrary.

No need to argue with Wildcat. Wildcat isn't posting the election was in 2007, Wildcat isn't repeatedly building blatant strawmen and attributing them to me.

But yes, all you said was, and I quote:

the IRA's political platform was the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms.​

See the words "defined in absolutist religious terms." You re-typed them so you must. The core of Hamas's charter is the liberation of all of Palestine and to turn it into an "Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day." The IRA didn't want to liberate Great Britain and to turn it into an "Religious Waqf consecrated for future generations until Judgement Day."

They are different. And you'll have zero luck "negotiating" the Islam out of Hamas. It is non-negotiable.

But you already knew that because you're the expert in this subject, right?

Funny, isn't it, how the Catholics killed people who were against "the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms", and the Protestants killed people who were for "the unification of Ireland - not defined in absolutist religious terms".

Asked and answered. You just didn't know the answer because your knowledge in this subject is minimal at best.

Still, if you will condescend to explain to us what you mean by "not defined in absolutist religious terms", when speaking either of Northern Ireland or of Palestine, I shall be happy to tell you whether you are right or wrong ... and whether you are hastily backpedaling from an untenable position.

Thanks for being the referee here. But so far you didn't know what year the Palestinian elections were, you've never heard of Salam Fayyad or Third Way, and you have no idea what the Hamas charter reads. So I think you are the least qualified to tell me whether I am right or wrong in this subject.

Have a nice day.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Well, let's t ake this thread in a new direction.

Suggest actions Isreal can take that
1) do not affect it's security in a profoundly negative way
2) aid the common person and not Hamas.

 

[Skeptic]

Let me put it this way. It's WWII. Germany is daily bombing England with bombers and rockets, like Hamas is doing to Israeli towns. Now, is it morally OK for Britian to blockade German ports? Or is it a war crime, since it makes the German population suffer, and not ALL Germans are Nazis or V2 rocket crews?

If you suggest Israel's attempt at blockade is immoral, I fail to see how you can not claim Churchill was a war criminal, too, using the same standards. If, on the other hand, you claim Britian had a right to blockade the Germans ports, I believe one must concede Israel has a similar right.

Why is it that, for the useful idiots on this forum, Israel always has to pass some ridiculously impractical and impossible "test", one no other nation is ever asked to meet (and for very good reasons), before it is allowed (in their view) to fight back against those who would destroy it -- a test that in effect means that it must do nothing?

 

[DC]

Let me put it this way. It's WWII. Germany is daily bombing England with bombers and rockets, like Hamas is doing to Israeli towns. Now, is it morally OK for Britian to blockade German ports? Or is it a war crime, since it makes the German population suffer, and not ALL Germans are Nazis or V2 rocket crews?

If you suggest Israel's attempt at blockade is immoral, I fail to see how you can not claim Churchill was a war criminal, too, using the same standards. If, on the other hand, you claim Britian had a right to blockade the Germans ports, I believe one must concede Israel has a similar right.

Why is it that, for the useful idiots on this forum, Israel always has to pass some ridiculously impractical and impossible "test", one no other nation is ever asked to meet (and for very good reasons), before it is allowed (in their view) to fight back against those who would destroy it -- a test that in effect means that it must do nothing?

i think Germany would be the better analogy.

when they occupied part of France, would it be OK for the Germans to blockade supply routes to the not occupied part of France?
to stopp the France ressistance?

 

[gtc]

You couldn't make this crap up.

Yeah, the Palestinian people have a wonderful life, a superb standard of living, they want for nothing, all the modern luxuries.

You have answered a question about Palestinian terrorists with a statement about what you believe to be the condition of ordinary Palestinians.

Even those Palestinians who were forced and scared off their land and out of their homes 60 years ago and don't hate Jews weren't really bothered about it. They understood that the Israeli's deserved the land more than they did.

You did it again here.

The Islamist terrorists are much smarter than most of those (Westerners and otherwise) who act as their apologists. They are able to appear to be defenders of the faith; charity workers; political activists; freedom fighters; anti-Western and anti-Capitalist rebels and anti-semites depending on the audience. Each sees what they want in the Islamists and each overlooks what they don't want to see.

 

[gtc]

Let me put it this way. It's WWII. Germany is daily bombing England with bombers and rockets, like Hamas is doing to Israeli towns. Now, is it morally OK for Britian to blockade German ports? Or is it a war crime, since it makes the German population suffer, and not ALL Germans are Nazis or V2 rocket crews?

If you suggest Israel's attempt at blockade is immoral, I fail to see how you can not claim Churchill was a war criminal, too, using the same standards. If, on the other hand, you claim Britian had a right to blockade the Germans ports, I believe one must concede Israel has a similar right.

I doubt they will be able to bring themselves to either concede that you are right or to explain why the situations are different.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

How do Hamas want Israel to respond to its attacks?

Does the type of behaviour currently used by Israel toward Hamas/Palestine makes the Palestinian people more or less likely to support Hamas?

What type of behaviour by Israel toward Palestine would make the Palestinian people less likely to support Hamas?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I doubt they will be able to bring themselves to either concede that you are right or to explain why the situations are different.

I was unaware the Palestinian-Israel situation was considered Total war.

 

[a_unique_person]

The Islamist terrorists are much smarter than most of those (Westerners and otherwise) who act as their apologists. They are able to appear to be defenders of the faith; charity workers; political activists; freedom fighters; anti-Western and anti-Capitalist rebels and anti-semites depending on the audience. Each sees what they want in the Islamists and each overlooks what they don't want to see.

I think you know what they actually think. Perhaps you have some evidence?

 

[ddt]

Jersey is a Crown dependency. It isn't part of the UK.

Also consider Vatican City, Andorra, San Marino, Monaco, Liechtenstein and The Cook Islands. Or this wikipedia article on associated states.

Jersey is listed as part of the UK in the list of sovereign states on wiki. The other ones are sovereign states that have delegated part/most of their foreign relations to bigger neighbouring countries.

I don't think your binary definition of statehood matches the reality.

In particular, having an army or the presence of foreign embassies is not a definition that I have seen used before. Several countries do not maintain military forces and opposition to the idea of standing armies was traditionally strong.

Point taken. The wiki article on standing armies misses out on an important aspect: most states couldn't afford financially to have a permanent (large) standing army; mercenaries are costly. Draft was only instituted (in Europe) during/after Napoleon. Opposition against a standing army may have been strong in England and the US, but the French/Spanish/Austrian/Prussian absolutist rulers had absolutely no problem with the idea.

Taiwan is not a member of the UN, Switzerland only joined in 2002 and it took several years for East Timor to join the UN after independence. I can't see how UN membership can be a requirement for statehood.

Is Taiwan a state? See below. Switzerland wasn't a member of the UN, but the UN and virtually all other states in the world recognized it as a state. East Timor was under UN tutelage from 1999 to May 2002, when it declared independence, and it became a UN member in September 2002, so the several years are in fact only 4 months.

I take your point that the characteristics I mentioned are not adequate to establish statehood. So let's see what wiki has to say about state:

The word state has both an empirical and a juridical sense; that is, entities can be states either de facto or de jure or both.[3]

Empirically (or de facto), an entity is a state if, as in Max Weber's influential definition, it is that organization that has a 'monopoly on legitimate violence' over a specific territory.[4] Such an entity imposes its own legal order over a territory, even if it is not legally recognized as a state by other states (e.g., the Somali region of Somaliland).

Juridically (or de jure), an entity is a state in international law if it is recognized as such by other states, even if it does not actually have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force over a territory. Only an entity juridically recognized as a state can enter into many kinds of international agreements and be represented in a variety of legal forums, such as the United Nations.

As we were talking here about the capacity of states to enter into contract with other states or with supranational bodies - signing of Geneva convention, recognition of states, and even war - which means "armed conflict between states" is a kind of contract - we're clearly talking about the juridical definition.

So we're back at the previously mentioned list of sovereign states. That consists first of 193 states that are recognized by the UN (which are all member except for Vatican City), and that are recognized by nearly all other states of that list. I think there's no dispute here about those states.

Next are 10 states lacking international recognition. Palestine tops that list with 93 recognitions; Taiwan is also on that list with 23 recognitions. Now, we can indeed argue about that list, so I concede the point that statehood is not a binary proposition.

But whichever entity is not on that list is not a state: no-one, i.e. not a single other state, nor the UN, has recognized it as such.

So to get back to the point where the state dispute originated: some posters claimed statehood for "Hamastan", "Gaza" or how you'd like to call it. That point has been invalidated with this.

 

[DC]

good point by Ivor.

hungry teenagers that are looking for food in the garbage will become big fans of Israel and hate hamas, or was it the other way around?

like the sign of a young palestinian girls read.
Dont bring Occupation, bring education.

 

[gtc]

I think you know what they actually think. Perhaps you have some evidence?

I think they believe what they say and believe what they do.

They are vicious anti-semites; willing to do charity work because they think it is the right thing to do and because it helps them to win influence etc; defenders of what they consider to be their faith and so on.

 

[DC]

I think they believe what they say and believe what they do.

They are vicious anti-semites; willing to do charity work because they think it is the right thing to do and because it helps them to win influence etc; defenders of what they consider to be their faith and so on.

who are they?