The Israel-Palestine Conflict Mk.II

Original post by CombineHarvester

You seem to think it's universally agreed or even the most commonly held idea that the blockade is legal, clearly this is not the case and therefore has a significant effect on the legality of action taken to enforce the blockade. I've already quoted the relevant extract which suggests that if a blockade has a disproportionately bad effect on the civilians in the area or is used as a form of collective punishment it is illegal. Also the incredibly strict nature of the blockade means a lot of foodstuffs and aid including basic building materials which are necessities do not reach Gaza which is the exact reason why aid flotillas have come about - if Israel did let reasonable items through such as concrete, toys and chocolate flotillas wouldn't be so prevalent. Quoting a few lawyers is not a strong argument because there's countless international law professors and lawyers including many Israeli ones as well as institutions such as the Red Cross, UN, European Union and Amnesty International who have stated that it is illegal. The inquest into the legality of the raid has been carried out by the Turkish authorities and found to be illegal under international law. The UN will do similar so that should provide independent results. Also the IDF claims of weapons on the flotilla are completely unreliable, of course a group of people who have just shot dead many civilians aren't going to be an independent source of information, in fact the flotilla and its passengers had been thoroughly searched using x-ray machines and metal detectors before they were allowed to board.

In any case, legal technicalities (which you'd have to use as well as the Israeli government in order to defend this) are at most weak grounds on defending the raid or blockade. The reason why the law exists is far more important (to protect human rights, dignity, freedom etc.) and an independent inquiry would determine it to be illegal using a reasonable interpretation of the law rather than what you have done which is a false interpretation of international law which is not applicable to Israel today.

I don't think that the legality of the blockade is universally agreed. To the contrary, I believe that the law is the law, and is open to interpretation. Just because the UN affirm it to be either legal or illegal does not mean that ruling isn't open to appeal. In fact, I merely quoted the passages from treaties and documents of international law - including UN ones themselves - which defend the blockade's legality. I've told you that those who contend that Israel is in legal occupation of Gaza must also support and even demand Israeli military operations in order to disarm Palestinian terror groups and militias, as it was preemptively doing aboard the flotilla. Were Gaza still under military occupation (as the UN considers it to be), there would also be no problem blockading it. Indeed, Common Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that IHL extends to undeclared wars and occupied territory. So if it is occupied, the action on the flotilla was justified, and if it isn't occupied then the action on the flotilla was justified. Catch-22, if you will. I believe the Turkel Commission will address this matter thoroughly and I have no doubt that the Israeli Supreme Court will treat this issue with as much fairness and neutrality as they did the West Bank Barrier, when the Court ordered the Government to tear down large sections of the wall where it compromised Palestinians' rights.

Without trusting the IDF too much, I value their opinion over a group of people intent on breaking the law. However I think the best place to look is to the video footage of the soldiers who took part in the operation. This BBC documentary did a good job of it, in my opinion.

Reply 8562

Folderol

2

Original post by zohaib93

the holocaust could easily have been made up fiction by america and the jews, so they could steal palestinian lands easily and people would feel sorry, and thats what happened, maybe palestinians should fake a holocaust and get the land back.

Oh great, the third person who is entertaining the thought of he Holocaust being a hoax. Lovely88 claims Hitler is a Zionist Jew and his body was his hidden by Zionist and invokes a figure of 6,000. Sherll says that David Cole's claims are "true," and sometimes thinks of the gas chambers being a hoax. Zohaib, aside from claiming Jews are 'penny pinching' and 'are known to be liars,' now says this.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 8563

Original post by beepbeeprichie

Those attacks a few years ago were entirely disproportionate. And Israel has only made territorial concessions to land which it has no legitimate entitlement to.

There is not a single document in international law, nor customary warfare, which states attacks have to be disproportionate. Nevertheless for a decade Israel endured over 8,000 rocket attacks on its territory and was justified in responding. The fact that half of all killed in Cast Lead were combatants (and this was even admitted by Hamas themselves) shows the restraint with which they acted. No modern war has ever reached a 1:1 civilian:combatant death ratio. It is indeed much, much lower than those who died of Coalition attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not entirely convinced you know much about international law when you say they have "only made territorial concessions to land which it has no legitimate entitlement to" - the rules of war clearly state that when a sovereign nation is invaded (as Israel was in the late '40s and 1967) then that nation has the right to occupy territories of the invading states in defence. It is worth noting that it was Egypt who first occupied Gaza and Jordan who occupied the West Bank. Given that a sovereign entity did not exist in these regions prior to 1967, Israel had every right to occupy them in self-defence when invasion attempts were made.

Reply 8564

Mujeriego

10

Original post by tehFrance

Are you serious? I guess I need to yell I'm a Jew more around them as they seem fine too me :colondollar:

Original post by Luceria

What?

I've never met anyone who has anything against Jews. I've never heard about this. Well I know how it was in the past, but that was a long time ago. Well not that long ago, when you consider World War 2 and such. But it's not like that today.

Yeah. I agree. But in all fairness you don't have to be that anti-Semitic to stand out in the West since there is hardly any prejudice left towards Jews nowadays. I was a bit bemused when I read about it myself but in retrospect there is an undeniable pattern in parliament and amongst the upper classes. It most certainly is not representative of the general Norwegian population. For example, sh'hita slaughter (kosher) is banned whilst there are no similar ethical restrictions on halal, battery, minke whale, Bryde or seal meat. One of the main lobbyists for upholding the ban is part of the JWA who use exploding harpoons to kill their catch. How is that more humane? :s-smilie:

Bearing in mind that this is a law that was put into effect three months after Hitler rose to power. It should have been lifted by now.

Reply 8565

jakemittle

Original post by callum9999

Well I thought I was! Where do they have power? I just assumed it wasn't very significant, what with the unrelenting criticism the EU has towards Israel.

Here is a lobby group...they have donated apparently $16.8m to the Tories

Lord Kalm, a CFI member and significant donor to the Conservatives, threatened to remove Hague's funding after he said that Israel had used "disproportionate" force during its war in Lebanon in 2006.

David Cameron, the Conservative leader, is alleged to have promised not to repeat the conjecture.

At least half of the shadow cabinet are members of the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI),

Labour Friends of Israel, another key group, is described as being "less unquestioning in its support of the Israeli government than CFI". But it has taken more MPs on free trips to Israel than any other group – more than 60 since 2001.

CFI has also flown over 30 Tory parliamentary candidates to Israel on free trips in the last three years.

Source

Source

Reply 8566

jakemittle

Original post by zohaib93

the holocaust could easily have been made up fiction by america and the jews, so they could steal palestinian lands easily and people would feel sorry, and thats what happened, maybe palestinians should fake a holocaust and get the land back.

all we hear is palestinans rejetced the partition plan, ofcourse theyw ould, the jews got most of the aldn and ahd less population, they got the best coastal area, the most fertile land, access to the suez canal aswell as the med., ofcourse jews accepted it, palestinans did not reject the partition they rejected how it was partitioned, a state built by zionist terrorist jews, will be brought down by extremist islamist terrorists, like for like, two wrongs may not make a right but a jewish wrong and a palestinain right does not make a right so we may aswell see two wrongs, israel needs to be taught a severe lesson, and it will be taught it one day, maybe not in our lifetime or that fo the next generation, but it will def. be taught a lesosn one day make no mistake and when israel is taught the lesson, it will no forget it, ever.

Reply 8567

jakemittle

Original post by Summergirl.x

It's all AIPAC. They have such a large grip on American politics its quite impossible for any American politician to go against them. - Not unless they want to loose their next election. AIPAC isn't always representative of Israel's view - Israeli politicians in the past have commented that AIPAC is more pro-Israel than the Israeli government.
It's a shame that the politicians can't see that to go against the wishes of AIPAC and do something that clearly has the support of the world behind it. Who knows, the American brave enough to do this one day, might be thanked by their people.

The problem is that they would be out of a job and would probably never get elected again as the rival would present them as someone who is anti-Israel and anti-American...

Reply 8568

adam_zed

16

Really? So the massacre at Deir Yassin of 100 arabs not involved in fighting was a "minor attack" on a "military target"? Nearly 100 people died when a Jewish group bombed the british hq, how is this a military target? I also remember a British governor being assassinated but I may be wrong about that. Even so, despite the numerous Arab retaliations this just shows that Jewish action amounted to more then "minor attacks".

Well looking at it objectively I would suggest that maybe it was because they were angered at their lands being annexed even in part by Jewish immigrants? I dont understand why someone with the intelligence you have shown in other posts would continue to look at the whole conflict with such a partisan approach, something I personally associate with the people who dont know much and just want the excitement of chatting about something vaguely intelligent.

Reply 8569

Original post by adam_zed

Really? So the massacre at Deir Yassin of 100 arabs not involved in fighting was a "minor attack" on a "military target"? Nearly 100 people died when a Jewish group bombed the british hq, how is this a military target? I also remember a British governor being assassinated but I may be wrong about that. Even so, despite the numerous Arab retaliations this just shows that Jewish action amounted to more then "minor attacks".

Well looking at it objectively I would suggest that maybe it was because they were angered at their lands being annexed even in part by Jewish immigrants? I dont understand why someone with the intelligence you have shown in other posts would continue to look at the whole conflict with such a partisan approach, something I personally associate with the people who dont know much and just want the excitement of chatting about something vaguely intelligent.

I know about the attacks at Deir Yassin and I know about the Arab attacks on Jewish towns. No side escaped this conflict without doing immoral things, however the idea that because Israel was founded upon sporadic attacks of violence it somehow deserves it or cannot complain when it happens today is just absurd. Even the great United States of America could not have come into being without the cleansing of Indians from their lands, but we don't sit back and say "well, the USA can't complain about 9/11 because it was a nation founded upon force." A military HQ is a military target by the way. The Irgun, which carried out the attack on the King David, made three phone calls to numerous organisations warning of the attack, but I believe the British high command in the Hotel responded with "we don't take orders from Jews." These documents were all released in Parliament in 1979. Of course it doesn't justify it though. Despite the events at Deir Yassin and the King David, the Jewish attacks were relatively minor. The Palestinian refugee problem and other violent attacks mainly happened after Israel was a state, so to claim it was founded upon terrorism is disingenuous. Make no mistake, I'm not attempting to look at this from a partisan approach. I merely look at the history surrounding the conflicts and try and correct people who say things that are inaccurate. However I do have a strong moral sense and I don't buy the view that 'both sides are as bad as each other' - and that goes for any conflict. There has to be an instigator and one side has to be worse than the other. In this conflict I attribute these faults to the Palestinian side, although I realise Israel have done some pretty awful things in the past. Look up Sabra and Shatilla and you'll see what I mean. However I think on the whole they represent the most moral side and when it comes to warfare situations I am a firm believer in 'the means justify the ends'.

Reply 8570

I would hardly call someone wishing death onto 9 activists as a normal human being.

Reply 8571

Libertinedreamer

9

Original post by ma3eeni

Forget America. What about the UN? The guy is targeting civilians more blatantly than Israel does ( :tongue:

) and no one is doing anything about it. Even the media isn't giving it the attention it needs. I just find it strange.

The flotilla incident was top news FLASHING IN YOUR EYES!!11 story on most news websites the minute it happened.

What exactly happens when Israel does it? Nothing. How can we comment on other countries war crimes? Think we lost the moral high ground in about 2001.

Reply 8572

Original post by ma3eeni

I would hardly call someone wishing death onto 9 activists as a normal human being.

I don't wish for the deaths of anyone. Typical of you and your asinine views to twist what I say. I believe the activists were wrong to break the law and I believe the soldiers had a right to defend themselves. If you drove a car through my garden and I then tried to get in the car to stop you, only for you to hit me with a large metal pole, to which I respond using a gun, I don't think anyone would be so stupid as to say I 'wished' for your death. Rather, I think they'd judge the situation and say that my self-defensive actions were necessitated in order to save my life, seeing as you initiated force against both my property and my person. Get some perspective. You are so good at judging a situation by merely what happened - i.e. "nine people dead: this must be a bad thing" - whereas you should look to the background to the situation first. By the way, do you condemn Hamas' suicide bombings? If you do, then you must also believe that measures must be taken to stop them killing innocents in this way? If not then you passively let them get away with their killings, but if so then you'll understand that the life of a Hamas operative who wishes to kill Jews is not equal to a civilian.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 8573

Original post by Axes

By that definition? Every single European state that is currently engaging in warfare.

What are you on about? Which EU country is currently occupying another and subjugating a nation's aspiration for independence?

Reply 8574

Love how you compare the flotilla to 'someone driving into your garden'. Great analogy.

So where do you draw the line? Are the lives of people who voted for Hamas also expendable in the Zionist's outlook on life?

Reply 8575

Original post by ma3eeni

Love how you compare the flotilla to 'someone driving into your garden'. Great analogy.

So where do you draw the line? Are the lives of people who voted for Hamas also expendable in the Zionist's outlook on life?

Not entirely because voting for a terrorist group is different to actually carrying out bombings and rocket attacks.

Reply 8576

But the people on the ship weren't carrying out bombings nor rocket attacks. :confused:

Reply 8577

Axes

2

Original post by ma3eeni

What are you on about? Which EU country is currently occupying another and subjugating a nation's aspiration for independence?

Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded, for one, being far more bloody than the whole I/P conflict. And there are numerous occupations in Europe that are little different, from Northern Ireland to the Basque's. European countries engaged in conflict arn't better than Israel. In Afghanistan and Iraq, they are arguably worse.

Reply 8578