Shame on Israel!!!

[irydion]

no international body is needed to impose blockade. A blockade is imposed by one side of an armed conflict upon another.

 

[BostonPirate]

Israel is there. period. As someone wrote above.... nations rise and fall all the time.

Alot of nations rose and fell after and during WW2. This is what it looks like when a nation, Israel, Rises and takes the place of another nation that had already fallen. Lets not forget that the westbank was occupied by Jordan and hardly a viable nation in function.

So some say that the Jews should accept that they fell all those years ago and some say that Palestine should accept that they have fallen and move on.

It goes both ways.... historically speaking

So there has to be a third choice, a two state solution. I read the word Zionist up there and the hair rose up on the back of my neck. It brings this conversation to a place that I feel uncomfortable going. They are a real people, a real nation... it is Israel.

That is the hand churchill stalin and truman left us with when the war ended. It is not going to be undone.

Before the two state sollution can occur, the Israelis must trust the palestinians. Its won't happen any other way. If anyone gets high and mighty about this just remember your own nations history and imagine its greatest enemy, then place them on your border and arm them with rockets.

it does not engender a sense of trust and cooperation in the bombees.

Hamas is duly elected and it hs sworn the destruction of israel.

Until hamas goes from the westbank it won't change.

I think it needs do be understood that Israel will never give up that land and the nations of the americas and Eurasia will make sure that this is a reality.

So perhaps palestine needs to get that they are not going to get peace unless tey stop violence against Isreal and elects a leader that will support a two nation solution. Israel can't starve the westbank and keep in in the stone age and expect it to not be hated by Palestine.

so.... Israel should not have boarded that armada. It ws bad for its own interests.

This is more about leadership on both sides. Netanyahu is an unreasonable man and the entirety of Hamas is genocidal.

 

[JB3]

Then why didn't the U.N. support this in it's response? Int'l laws are just a body of treaties.

why did the entire world lie?

Their outrage had nothing to do with boarding the ship. I have not yet heard any unbiased person claim that Israel had no right to board the ship. The main point of disagreement revolved around the use of force.

Israel's right to board the ship under international law is not in dispute.

 

[irydion]

So there has to be a third choice, a two state solution. I read the word Zionist up there and the hair rose up on the back of my neck. It brings this conversation to a place that I feel uncomfortable going. They are a real people, a real nation... it is Israel.

What is wrong in using word "zionist"? It's a name zionist themselves used. And how the hell should one call zionists, that is Jews who were settling in Palestine, prior to the creation of Israel? I was referring to the actions in the 30's after all.

Before the two state sollution can occur, the Israelis must trust the palestinians. Its won't happen any other way.

hm, shouldn't Palestinians trust Israelis too?

Hamas is duly elected and it hs sworn the destruction of israel.

The destruction of Israel is not some horrible goal. Israel, in my opinion, has right to exist (only because it exists for a couple generations now and people born there have no other homeland), but it's not something obvious and morally clear. Israel is something relatively recent, and the constant conflict that surrounds its existance is reminding everyone there about it. Also, it's not suprising Palestinians, after decades of occupation, are electing radicals.

Israel should give up its ideas of safety. Safety relies not only on military strenght, but mostly on good relationships with neighbours. There are Israelis who say that 1967 borders are too long and not set on natural borders to be safe in case of attack. That is true. But truth is also that Israel has peace with Jordan for years now. And Palestinians will never be able to launch a military attack on Israel on their own. The only way to keep strategically safer border on Jordan is to occupy Palestinians, which keeps the conflict going, and is ultimately dangerous for Israel.

 

[JayHawk]

Their outrage had nothing to do with boarding the ship. I have not yet heard any unbiased person claim that Israel had no right to board the ship. The main point of disagreement revolved around the use of force.

Israel's right to board the ship under international law is not in dispute.

So then why is there outrage?

Is there outrage when a policeman stops a driver for a traffic violation and then uses deadly force after the suspect attempts to run the officer over with his or her car?

Same activity. End of story.

I am glad none of you are in the military. Because as I was being beaten with a pipe I would rather have someone pullng a trigger behind be at my agressor rather than picking up a pipe ...cuz 'hey we gotta be fair in the use of violence'

 

[JB3]

So then why is there outrage?

Is there outrage when a policeman stops a driver for a traffic violation and then uses deadly force after the suspect attempts to run the officer over with his or her car?

Same activity. End of story.

I am glad none of you are in the military. Because as I was being beaten with a pipe I would rather have someone pullng a trigger behind be at my agressor rather than picking up a pipe ...cuz 'hey we gotta be fair in the use of violence'

I don't agree with those that say the use of force was not justified, FYI.

 

[JayHawk]

I don't agree with those that say the use of force was not justified, FYI.

< shrug > you appeared to be defending the outrage.

 

[JB3]

< shrug > you appeared to be defending the outrage.

Goodness no. I was just saying that the outrage was based on the use of force not the act of boarding the ship.

 

[BostonPirate]

.......The destruction of Israel is not some horrible goal. Israel, in my opinion, has right to exist (only because it exists for a couple generations now and people born there have no other homeland), but it's not something obvious and morally clear. Israel is something relatively recent, and the constant conflict that surrounds its existance is reminding everyone there about it. Also, it's not suprising Palestinians, after decades of occupation, are electing radicals.

Israel should give up its ideas of safety. Safety relies not only on military strenght, but mostly on good relationships with neighbours......

I just want to redirect this and retranslate it in a way that will hopefully make people think......



.......The destruction of America is not some horrible goal. the USA in my opinion, has right to exist (only because it exists for a couple generations now and people born there have no other homeland), but it's not something obvious and morally clear. America is something relatively recent, and the constant conflict that surrounds its existance is reminding everyone there about it. Also, it's not suprising native americans, after decades of occupation, are electing radicals.

the USA should give up its ideas of safety. Safety relies not only on military strenght, but mostly on good relationships with neighbours......

is this acceptable to americans?

why would it be for Israelis?

 

[JayHawk]

It is not. People demand action when we are attacked. The reason Bush could push into to countries was the desire of Americans for some sort of action.

We would not stand for this sort of behavior from a neighbor. We would not only retaliate we would decimate a neighbor that constantly lobbed missiles and suicide bombers at our citizens. Based on world condemnation (including from our govt) Israel continues to simply play tit for tat.

Of this you can be sure, they will never relinquish that land now that they have it back and they will never lay down.

It really is odd to me that people can't see the parallel.

 

[bankside]

I, for one, will be convinced that the Canada we know and love will be gone forever. But, then, Thucydides wrote that Themistocles' greatness lay in the fact that he realized Athens was not immortal. I think we have to realize that Canada is not immortal; but, if it is going to go, let it go with a bang rather than a whimper.

Trudeau, our greatest Prime Minister, about Canada. Testifying before the Senate in opposition to the Meech Lake Accord

Countries do come and go. Palestine should come. Israel should stay.

 

[Kulindahr]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19487

Besides relying on material rendered invalid by more recent agreements, the article's title is a flat-out lie: it is not supported by the article's content.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, if they want to destroy it it's also thanks to israeli policies. If they were given citizenship in the beginning, they'd be acting different. Israel occupies this land for almost half a century and it's not likely it even wants to let these lands go. It wants to keep this land, but without giving its indigenous population citizen rights.

Israel granted citizenship to everyone who wanted to stay and be peaceful right back at the start. They also granted citizenship to all the Jews driven from their homes in all the states that declared war on Israel the moment it was born. It's a nice comment on the situation that none of those enemies have had the decency to offer citizenship to any of the people the conflict they began displaced.

Acceptance of israeli independance is one of the things Palestinians can trade for something during negotiations. What Israel demands is Palestinians making concessions even before the talks begin. Does Israel recognise existence of independent Palestine anyway?

Israel recognized them to begin with, but the two-state solution was rejected by everyone else and they were attacked. And every time since then that they've made concessions, the result has been that their enemies take it as a sign of weakness and keep on pressing.

If I were Israel, the only way I'd trust the Palestinians is if they rounded up every member of every organization that has ever been party to terrorism against Israel and beheaded them in a public marketplace as common criminals. Then before I'd agree to any settlement I'd require than a non-negotiable provision would be that every nation party to violence against Israel from the time of the British Mandate and since accept unlimited immigration by any residents of the original mandate-Palestine and their descendants, from now till the African Rift opens to the sea.

 

[irydion]

Israel granted citizenship to everyone who wanted to stay and be peaceful right back at the start. They also granted citizenship to all the Jews driven from their homes in all the states that declared war on Israel the moment it was born. It's a nice comment on the situation that none of those enemies have had the decency to offer citizenship to any of the people the conflict they began displaced.

It forced out hundreds of thousands of people and didn't let them back, confiscated their land and used for jewish settlements. Israel aimed at establishing a large jewish-settled area and assuring a big jewish majority in their state. Offering palestinian refugees citizenship by neighbour arab states is exactly what Israel wanted, it hoped they would dillute in their fellow arabic-speakers.

Anyway, I'm referring to 1967, not 1948 conquests. Israel does not have all that many problems with its arabic citizens.

Israel recognized them to begin with, but the two-state solution was rejected by everyone else and they were attacked. And every time since then that they've made concessions, the result has been that their enemies take it as a sign of weakness and keep on pressing.

it did? Not quite. As far as I know, recognition of an independent state can not be revoked. israel did agree to a 2-state sollution, because it was extremly advantageous to them at that point, but I'm not sure it ever actually recognised independent Palestine. If it did, it would have to still recognise it, and it doesn't.

Which doesn't, of course, mean that other arabic states acted nicely.

If I were Israel, the only way I'd trust the Palestinians is if they rounded up every member of every organization that has ever been party to terrorism against Israel and beheaded them in a public marketplace as common criminals. Then before I'd agree to any settlement I'd require than a non-negotiable provision would be that every nation party to violence against Israel from the time of the British Mandate and since accept unlimited immigration by any residents of the original mandate-Palestine and their descendants, from now till the African Rift opens to the sea.

Isn't that one-sided, again? Arabs have to do this and that so that Israel would "trust" them and start negotiations. It's Israel who settled on someone else's territory, it's Israel who cleansed Palestine, occupied West Bank, Gaza etc for decades, confiscates land, fills Palestine and Golan with illegal settlements, uses collective punishment, etc. Arabs, on another hand, use terrorism, and chased out their jewish minorities after the conflict with Israel started. So both sides have some guilt, although imo, Israel is much more guilty in general.

 

[irydion]

I just want to redirect this and retranslate it in a way that will hopefully make people think......


.......The destruction of America is not some horrible goal. the USA in my opinion, has right to exist (only because it exists for a couple generations now and people born there have no other homeland), but it's not something obvious and morally clear. America is something relatively recent, and the constant conflict that surrounds its existance is reminding everyone there about it. Also, it's not suprising native americans, after decades of occupation, are electing radicals.

the USA should give up its ideas of safety. Safety relies not only on military strenght, but mostly on good relationships with neighbours......

is this acceptable to americans?

why would it be for Israelis?

I do believe London had right to see USA as no more than a couple revolted provinces for several decades after it was created. And I do believe that native Americans had right to see british settlers as intruders and dream of getting them out of their land for several decades after they first encountered them (so before creation of USA when it comes to the eastern shore). It is tradition that gives legitimity, and there's no tradition without history.

USA was established 234 years ago, on a land Americans were a major part of population for many decades prior to that, although yes, native Americans' rights were many a time trampled at that point and afterwards. Israel was established
62 years go, by a 1/3 minority, most of whom weren't even born in the land they claimed as theirs.