the strawman I pointed out is indeed a strawman.
and if NOT a strawman, then its a lie. you choose.
do you REALLY feel that the 1 million people of Gaza are trying to kill every last Israeli?
huh.
Last edited:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
General Israel/Palestine discussion thread
- Thread starter LashL
- Start date
- Status
the strawman I pointed out is indeed a strawman.
and if NOT a strawman, then its a lie. you choose.
do you REALLY feel that the 1 million people of Gaza are trying to kill every last Israeli?
huh.
it was just a guess. honestly, I have no evidence to say where those weapons were bound for.
and neither do you.
it was just a guess. honestly, I have no evidence to say where those weapons were bound for.
and neither do you.
Yes, I have a well known history between Iran, Syria and Hamas to base my assumption on.
you have a history between Iran, Syria, and Hamas?
interesting.
....but what evidence do you have that these weapons for bound for Gaza?
none.
I'm sorry Pardalis, but I am waaaay too old to simply take the IDF's word for it.
JREF is a forum for skeptics, ya know.
got any evidence that the weapons were destined for Gaza?
this is JREF you know, and we require evidence.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
afraid to answer the question?
When was the last time you answered one of my questions, BD? Did you know I've got a few out there, just waiting for your attention? Would you like me to post some links?
In the mean time, to answer Thunder's question: Nobody is occupying Gaza.
The things Thunder cites as evidence of an occupation are actually evidence of a blockade. Occupation and blockade are two different things.
If the question were "who is blockading Gaza?", the answer would be "Israel and Egypt".
But the answer to Thunder's question is "nobody", and no amount of blockading will change that answer at all. Because occupation and blockade are two different things.
what do you call the logical fallacy when someone answers a question that was not asked?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Hrm. Good point. I was conflating your question and BD's. Sorry 'bout that.
To answer your question (though I'm certainly not the first to do so): Hamas controls the Gaza Strip. Whether or not Hamas is a national government depends on who you talk to, I suppose.
To answer BD's question: Israel and Egypt control access to Gaza, without occupying Gaza. They accomplish this by means of a blockade, which is different from an occupation.
I hope this clears up any confusion either you may have had.
Hamas is not an internationally recognized soverign entity.
Now, for argument's sake, I will say that Israel's Occupation of Gaza is now much more of a legal status, than a matter-of-fact, in the ground kinda Occupation.
But as far as soverignity & legality are concerned, Israel remains the Occupying power of the Gaza Strip. With Palestinian self-rule under Hamas.
IDB87
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,022
Libya supported Iran in the the Iran/Iraq war. It's not crazy to think Iran wouldn't materially support Libya when they need it, but I wonder what international law has to say about Iran shipping arms to Gaddaffi during the conflict.
He means Jordan's giving up any claim to the territories in (I think) 1988. Contrary to wha some people here might seem to imply, however, nobody in Israel thinks it was a "cunning plan" to "stick" Israel with the territories: it was more a matter of Jordan looking after its own interests, figuring it has enough unruly Palestinians under its control as it is...
(About 80% of the population... ruled by a king from a Saudi family... imported there by the British... but Jordan is NOT, I repeat NOT, the Palestinian state, you know, and everybody who thinks so is an insane right-wing zionist.... but I digress.)
Anyway, it's all very nice to say it's special pleading when it isn't your country that has to defend against possible wars of annihilation -- with long experience about how this is precisely what many (not all) of Israel's neighbors want. Not to mention that without the Jordan valley weapons would flow into the territories, or the Palestinian state, and would be used instantly to kill Israelies -- as happened in Gaza. It would mean Tel Aviv would come under constant mortar bombardment (yes, Israel is that narrow without the territories), and Jerusalem under constant sniper fire; quite apart from the possiblity of a front cutting Israel in half within a few minutes after a war started.
So you see, on this issue it seems that Israel has to choose between its people getting killed or being on the usual gang's bad side for being such nasty "right wing zionists". But since the usual gang blames Israel for anything anyway and cares nothing about it -- certain people here, for instance, are on record saying they "don't know and don't care" how, or if, it will be possible for Israel to defend itself against attack without the territories -- what does that matter? They constantly say anything Israel wants or demands or asks is "illegitimate right-wing zionist extremism". It's as meaningless as the communists in their rallies calling everybody who disagrees with them a "fascist".
Last edited:
after 16,000 posts, you should know how to appropriately address such an issue.
In the Middle East, "the enemy of my enemy, is my friend".
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,910
That arguments can be divorced from the anti-Semitism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm sure there are plenty of people who can get a good Israel hate-on while convincing themselves, and probably truthfully, they are not anti-Semetic.
Still...
Last edited:
I don't think any honest members here believe that there are no anti-Semites amoung the millions of anti-Zionists, or even simply critics of Israel.
But to disregard any & all criticism of Israel as an "anti-Semitic double-standard", says a lot more about the accuser..then the accused.
But to disregard any & all criticism of Israel as an "anti-Semitic double-standard", says a lot more about the accuser..then the accused.
- Status