NationStates Jolt Archive

7 palestineans including 3 children and 2 women from one family spending the day at the beach in Gaza were bombed by israeli battleships.

Were those children and women terrorists threatening the peace of israel?
:mad: :headbang:

...and now Hamas cancels the truce. Juuuust great. *sigh*
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5065982.stm

But the MSM will not touch anything that Israel does with a 10-foot pole. And if they do they are anti-semites.

You should have seen one of the girls, she was spending a nice day with her family at the beach she went to the bathroom when she came back her whole family was dead.
It was heartbreaking to watch ... :(

It's too bad...but war brings civilion deaths. Let's take Hiroshima, or Nagaski for instance.

It was either an accident, a disobeyed order, or the Palestineans did it to make some more propaganda...It's not like they're above killing innocents, even their own.

It was either an accident, a disobeyed order, or the Palestineans did it to make some more propaganda...It's not like they're above killing innocents, even their own.

You are kidding right, it was an accident or the palestineans did it? :mad:
why? b/c israel has never killed innocent civilians for absolutely no reason before?!

BREAK FREE!

For many months, the Israelis have regularly shelled open areas such as fields and orchards in an effort to prevent Palestinian militants using them to fire their home-made missile into crudely made missiles into nearby Israeli territory.

What a terrible ACCIDENT. Too bad Palestinian terrorists launch attacks from places frequented by civilians prompting Israel to shoot back.

What a terrible ACCIDENT. Too bad Palestinian terrorists launch attacks from places frequented by civilians prompting Israel to shoot back.

right it was a terrible ACCIDENT but if palestineans happen to kill any israeli civilian while resisting occupation of their land it's an act of terrorism and a TRAGEDY!

right it was a terrible ACCIDENT but if palestineans happen to kill any israeli civilian while resisting occupation of their land it's an act of terrorism and a TRAGEDY!

No, it's an accident if you are not targeting civilians. Many Palestinian terrorists intentionally target civilians, not military targets so therefore many killings of Israelis by Palestinians are not accidents, they are intentional.

No, it's an accident if you are not targeting civilians. Many Palestinian terrorists intentionally target civilians, not military targets so therefore many killings of Israelis by Palestinians are not accidents, they are intentional.

remind me again who is occupying whose land?

It was either an accident, a disobeyed order, or the Palestineans did it to make some more propaganda...It's not like they're above killing innocents, even their own.

Most likely a dreadful accident, but the Palestinean propoganda possibility wouldn't suprise me in the least.

right it was a terrible ACCIDENT but if palestineans happen to kill any israeli civilian while resisting occupation of their land it's an act of terrorism and a TRAGEDY!
What's the suicide bomber's excuse? He can't claim to be attacking a legitimate target, he's in a fucking cafe or bus! If he'd been blowing up a military checkpoint and there were some civilians standing around it would be a different story.

You are kidding right, it was an accident or the palestineans did it? :mad:
why? b/c israel has never killed innocent civilians for absolutely no reason before?!
No, not to my knowledge.

BREAK FREE!
From what?
right it was a terrible ACCIDENT but if palestineans happen to kill any israeli civilian while resisting occupation of their land it's an act of terrorism and a TRAGEDY!
Palestinean terrorists don't just happen to kill Israeli citizens, they specifically target them...

remind me again who is occupying whose land?
Makes no difference. If you squat in my home I'm still not allowed to beat your wife to death with the corpse of your baby.

Most likely a dreadful accident, but the Palestinean propoganda possibility wouldn't suprise me in the least.
Israeli military seem to confirm that it was their artillery. An investigation is pending...

remind me again who is occupying whose land?

Certainly. Palestinian squatters are illegally on Israeli land. If you do not know your history, the land was purchased, and the "peasants" (for lack of a better word) refused to leave the land even though they were granted citizenship in Jordan.

As for land gained later- that would be land taken in a war where Israel defended itself against several opponesnts, and routed them.

No, not to my knowledge.

then i guess u should look a bit further then what american media tells you

From what? of your blind support for israel

Palestinean terrorists don't just happen to kill Israeli citizens, they specifically target them...

right b/c bombing people on a beach is a very legitimate act of self defense.

7 palestineans including 3 children and 2 women from one family spending the day at the beach in Gaza were bombed by israeli battleships.

Israel doesn't have battleships. At least get your facts straight. :rolleyes:

remind me again who is occupying whose land?

That doesn't justify murder. By that logic, it is morally justified to kill a squatter for living on your land. It is not acceptable to use murder to achieve your goals and does not show the Palestinian resistance to be responsible enough to manage their own nation; in fact, anyone who intentionally targets civilians is little more than a murderer.

Israel doesn't have battleships. At least get your facts straight. :rolleyes:

i don't know or care what israel has all i know is that israeli murderes killed a family spending the day at the beach in cold blood and some people are finding excuses for its actions!:mp5:

http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/4/46/468/468509/gaza3a.jpg
Picture... No gore or details, just to show the area where the artillery hit.

i don't know or care what israel has all i know is that israeli murderes killed a family spending the day at the beach in cold blood and some people are finding excuses for its actions!:mp5:

You don't care about facts? Interesting.

Thank you. Drive through, dumbass.

That doesn't justify murder. By that logic, it is morally justified to kill a squatter for living on your land. It is not acceptable to use murder to achieve your goals and does not show the Palestinian resistance to be responsible enough to manage their own nation; in fact, anyone who intentionally targets civilians is little more than a murderer.

well if a squater has been occupying your land for 40 years and u have tried everything to get him out and he refuses to move let me know what u will do

i don't know or care what israel has all i know is that israeli murderes killed a family spending the day at the beach in cold blood and some people are finding excuses for its actions!:mp5:
Translation: "No killing by Israelis is ever accidental or justified. They're bloodthirsty savages who should just sit back and allow themselves to be exterminated."

Certainly. Palestinian squatters are illegally on Israeli land. If you do not know your history, the land was purchased, and the "peasants" (for lack of a better word) refused to leave the land even though they were granted citizenship in Jordan.

As for land gained later- that would be land taken in a war where Israel defended itself against several opponesnts, and routed them.

I'm sorry but the land, or at least the vast majority of it, was not purchased.

Would you care to provide a source for your claim, and a rough estimate of what acreage was purchased by 1947?

You don't care about facts? Interesting.

Thank you. Drive through, dumbass.

the only dumbass i see here is yourself, what difference how these innocent civilians were killed. the end result is 7 people including 3 children and 2 women were killed!!!

well if a squater has been occupying your land for 40 years and u have tried everything to get him out and he refuses to move let me know what u will do

Well, in a normal society you go to the courts and police and use the law to solve your problems. Murder is never acceptable, regardless of the squatters having been there for 4 days or 40 years.

then i guess u should look a bit further then what american media tells you
The American Media does'nt support Israel, at least most News sources here don't.

of your blind support for israel
It's not blind. I looked at the facts of the conflict and made my decision of which side to support.

right b/c bombing people on a beach is a very legitimate act of self defense.
If you think Israelis would kill Palestineans on purpose, then you're deluded...They have enough trouble trying to control them already, you think they want to give more propoganda material to them? It was an accident, or someone disobeyed the order to cease artillery shelling.

Well, in a normal society you go to the courts and police and use the law to solve your problems. Murder is never acceptable, regardless of the squatters having been there for 4 days or 40 years.

hey this sound like a really good idea, what courts should the palestineans go to to evict israel from their land? the israeli courts?

the only dumbass i see here is yourself, what difference how these innocent civilians were killed. the end result is 7 people including 3 children and 2 women were killed!!!

Shit happens. Move on.

the only dumbass i see here is yourself, what difference how these innocent civilians were killed. the end result is 7 people including 3 children and 2 women were killed!!!
It's called collateral damage. It's accidental, it's sad (I guess), but shit happens.

oh ok shit happens now i know how i'll feel next time someone decides to blow a bomb in the US, shit happens...

hey this sound like a really good idea, what courts should the palestineans go to to evict israel from their land? the israeli courts?

O they went to the courts. But this guy walked in and threw a big card with "Veto" on it at the Judges and that was the end of that.

oh ok shit happens now i know how i'll feel next time someone decides to blow a bomb in the US, shit happens...
You can blow whoever you like. I don't care who you blow.

If someone sets off a bomb in the US specifically targeting civilians it's terrorism. If they target the military or military industry, it's war and any civilian casualties are collateral damage. To non-Americans, yeah, shit happens.

oh ok shit happens now i know how i'll feel next time someone decides to blow a bomb in the US, shit happens...
The Palestineans and other Arab nations are the ones that attacked Israel first, not the other way around. The land, after World War 1, was occupied by British forces after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, which fought on the Axis side...The U.N. and Britain later gave the land to the Israelis to create a Jewish state.

The land was owned by the British, the British transferred their land to the Israelis...It's completely legal for them to be on the land. The Palestineans are squatters, not only that, but violent asshole squatters who refuse to leave...

If you think Israelis would kill Palestineans on purpose, then you're deluded...
:D

Ehm... You kinda forget that they do, indeed, kill Palestinians on purpose. A lot ofthem actually. Quite often. Even today.
The beach shelling occurred roughly an hour after an Israeli air strike killed three Palestinian gunmen who had fired a rocket into southern Israel, the military said. Israeli military aircraft targeted the gunmen's escape car with a missile.
See? Dead palestinians.

You can blow whoever you like. I don't care who you blow.

If someone sets off a bomb in the US specifically targeting civilians it's terrorism. If they target the military or military industry, it's war and any civilian casualties are collateral damage. To non-Americans, yeah, shit happens.

I'm not going to blow anyone i was just saying since americans don't seem to care about other innocent civilians dying why should we care when americans are killed?

The Palestineans and other Arab nations are the ones that attacked Israel first, not the other way around. The land, after World War 1, was occupied by British forces after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, which fought on the Axis side...The U.N. and Britain later gave the land to the Israelis to create a Jewish state.

The land was owned by the British, the British transferred their land to the Israelis...It's completely legal for them to be on the land. The Palestineans are squatters, not only that, but violent asshole squatters who refuse to leave...

the land was OWNED by the british?! hahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahha

The Palestineans and other Arab nations are the ones that attacked Israel first, not the other way around. The land, after World War 1, was occupied by British forces after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, which fought on the Axis side...The U.N. and Britain later gave the land to the Israelis to create a Jewish state.

The land was owned by the British, the British transferred their land to the Israelis...It's completely legal for them to be on the land. The Palestineans are squatters, not only that, but violent asshole squatters who refuse to leave...
Of course you are ignoring Gaza and the West bank?

the land was OWNED by the british?! hahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahha

You fail at history.

:D

Ehm... You kinda forget that they do, indeed, kill Palestinians on purpose. A lot ofthem actually. Quite often. Even today.

See? Dead palestinians.
Dead terrorist Palestineans...They don't count.
the land was OWNED by the british?! hahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahha
"Occupied", "Owned", whatever, the result is the same. The Palestineans were given a two-state deal, but they refused.

I'm not going to blow anyone i was just saying since americans don't seem to care about other innocent civilians dying why should we care when americans are killed?
There is a difference between killing innocent civilians on purpose and killing them by accident.

You fail at history.

No it seems you fail at history, the british were a foreign army in Palestine, just like the american army in Iraq.
Following your logic the americans can create tomorrow a jewish state in Iraq.

I'm sorry but the land, or at least the vast majority of it, was not purchased.

Would you care to provide a source for your claim, and a rough estimate of what acreage was purchased by 1947?

Non biased internet sources when it comes to Israel are non-existant, I just remember bits from a seminar on Middle East politics. Of the British mandate land to be divided into the arab and jewish states by the 1947 partition plan, Jewish corporations and people had purchased about 10%, 45% or so was government controlled land, and 45% Arab owned land. The land set up by the 1947 PP gave approx 55% to the Jewish state, which goes right along with the government controlled land and that already purchased by jews and jewish organizations.

But since you insist on sources where there are none reliable, here is a source biased AGAINST jews, from everyone's favorite propoganda whore- wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan

I'm not going to blow anyone...


Somehow I doubt that.

Dead terrorist Palestineans...They don't count.

"Occupied", "Owned", whatever, the result is the same. The Palestineans were given a two-state deal, but they refused.
See? You have to choose your words more carefully. ;)

Edit: Especially concerning this issue. This is as far from black-and-white, easy history lessons as they come. Every nuance counts and is integral to the argument.

That said, play nice and keep the flaming down boys and girls.

No it seems you fail at history, the british were a foreign army in Palestine, just like the american army in Iraq.
Following your logic the americans can create tomorrow a jewish state in Iraq.

That just killed about 10,000 of my brain cells. Do you even know what logic is?

Oh, and nice job bringing the US-Iraq situation into this, fuckstick. :rolleyes:

*snip*
Language, sonny, language! :(

The Palestineans and other Arab nations are the ones that attacked Israel first, not the other way around. The land, after World War 1, was occupied by British forces after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, which fought on the Axis side...The U.N. and Britain later gave the land to the Israelis to create a Jewish state.

The land was owned by the British, the British transferred their land to the Israelis...It's completely legal for them to be on the land. The Palestineans are squatters, not only that, but violent asshole squatters who refuse to leave...


So according to one previous poster the land was bought, and now you say that the land was transferred from the British to the Israelis. Do you have a more detailed account of this land being "transeferred" with a few dates etc?

Language, sonny, language! :(

But it's such a great word! :p

No it seems you fail at history, the british were a foreign army in Palestine, just like the american army in Iraq.
Um, no...Just...No.

The Ottomans fought on the side of the Axis, the German side, who were attacking the Allies. British invasion of Ottoman lands were perfectly justified.

(so is Iraq, i'll argue, for different reasons, but that's a different subject)

Following your logic the americans can create tomorrow a jewish state in Iraq.
We've never laid claim to the land, we're just there to strengthen the current new government. Even if it was "Occupied", we would'nt just up and give it to the Israelis...For one thing, Israel and Iraq are seperated by Jordan and Syria, so that would'nt make sense, and also, we're not gigantic assholes who don't care about Iraqis, contrary to radical socialist beliefs.

Um, no...Just...No.

The Ottomans fought on the side of the Axis, the German side, who were attacking the Allies. British invasion of Ottoman lands were perfectly justified.

(so is Iraq, i'll argue, for different reasons, but that's a different subject)

We've never laid claim to the land, we're just there to strengthen the current new government. Even if it was "Occupied", we would'nt just up and give it to the Israelis...For one thing, Israel and Iraq are seperated by Jordan and Syria, so that would'nt make sense, and also, we're not gigantic assholes who don't care about Iraqis, contrary to radical socialist beliefs.

Don't get sucked into his bullshit attempt to tie the two together.

Just a little reminder according to the partition plan and UN resolutions Israel has to withdraw from ALL the west bank and Jerusalem since these lands were not given to the israelis by the UN let israel withdraw from these lands and u'll have peace in middle east

But it's such a great word! :p
That it is, but the monkeys are listening! :eek:

(And the mods might be watching. Just a friendly fire -ops, meant reminder :p )

the land was OWNED by the british?! hahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahha

Wellllll?

Did you ever notice that the Ottoman empire was a great deal smaller after WW1?

I sentence you to a remedial History course.

Just a little reminder according to the partition plan and UN resolutions Israel has to withdraw from ALL the west bank and Jerusalem since these lands were not given to the israelis by the UN let israel withdraw from these lands and u'll have peace in middle east

You mean the partition plan the palestinians rejected? Israel didn't get those lands until they defended themselves against invasion, and pushed the borders back by kicking some ass.

Wellllll?

Did you ever notice that the Ottoman empire was a great deal smaller after WW1?

I sentence you to a remedial History course.

British forces were in palestine as an occupying force just like the ottomans these lands belong to the people who lived there not to the ottomans or the british!

Non biased internet sources when it comes to Israel are non-existant, I just remember bits from a seminar on Middle East politics. Of the British mandate land to be divided into the arab and jewish states by the 1947 partition plan, Jewish corporations and people had purchased about 10%, 45% or so was government controlled land, and 45% Arab owned land. The land set up by the 1947 PP gave approx 55% to the Jewish state, which goes right along with the government controlled land and that already purchased by jews and jewish organizations.

But since you insist on sources where there are none reliable, here is a source biased AGAINST jews, from everyone's favorite propoganda whore- wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan

6.93% was Jewish owned if you go by the figures from the "Jewish Virual Library" (400,000 acres). However I am glad that you at least state that Arabs owned land. Compared to some here thats progressive thinking. You unfortunately take a wayward walk through the confused wood when speaking about the land division after that, however.

And why is Wiki "biased against Jews"?

British forces were in palestine as an occupying force just like the ottomans these lands belong to the people who lived there not to the ottomans or the british!

Oh, you mean the Hebrews? Good work. You just collapsed your entire argument. You can run along now.

Just 7? Too bad it wasn't more.

Oh, you mean the Hebrews? Good work. You just collapsed your entire argument. You can run along now.

well actually the people living on that land were the palestineans

well actually the people living on that land were the palestineans

You're the one that keeps wanting to go back in history. Go back a little further. You lose.

Wellllll?

Did you ever notice that the Ottoman empire was a great deal smaller after WW1?

I sentence you to a remedial History course.

And I sentence you to read up on the terms of the British mandate. I must point out in advance that you will not see the words "Britain now owns.." there.

You're the one that keeps wanting to go back in history. Go back a little further. You lose.
You mean the Canaanites?

Just 7? Too bad it wasn't more.
Sure, sure. Shush now, the grown ups are talking. :rolleyes:

You're the one that keeps wanting to go back in history. Go back a little further. You lose.
how much 2000 years further, u're the one speaking of the british mandate, when the british got to palestine the palestineans lived there and the british decided to take the land and give it to the hebrews.
That wasn't enough for the israelis though as they wanted all the land even the parts that weren't given to them by the UN.

Oh, you mean the Hebrews? Good work. You just collapsed your entire argument. You can run along now.

The Sephradic community did not own all the land. Nor were they the sole long established community in the region Thats a rather stupid thing to try to beat down anyone with.

You mean the Canaanites?

Um...are they still around?

Just a little reminder according to the partition plan and UN resolutions Israel has to withdraw from ALL the west bank and Jerusalem since these lands were not given to the israelis by the UN let israel withdraw from these lands and u'll have peace in middle east
You must be absolutely right. Why hasn't anyone implemented this? Hamas, Iran, and thousands of home-grown jihadists would just give up on trying to destroy Israel if only the Muslims could have Jerusalem back.
Or, wait, maybe they'd keep killing Israeli civilians. Yeah, that's it.

how much 2000 years further, u're the one speaking of the british mandate, when the british got to palestine the palestineans lived there and the british decided to take the land and give it to the hebrews.
That wasn't enough for the israelis though as they wanted all the land even the parts that weren't given to them by the UN.

When the hell did I bring up the British mandate? :confused:

Um...are they still around?

Well, if we're going back to the original owners, them they are.

And if they don't exist, we clone them from tombs and give them back their land.

You must be absolutely right. Why hasn't anyone implemented this? Hamas, Iran, and thousands of home-grown jihadists would just give up on trying to destroy Israel if only the Muslims could have Jerusalem back.
Or, wait, maybe they'd keep killing Israeli civilians. Yeah, that's it.
Heh, in fact, I would argue the exact opposite...If the Palestineans got Jerusalem back, it would be a huge moral-boost to the muslim terrorist organizations and they'd increase their activities. They've allways claimed to want to "push the Jews back into the sea", a thinly-veiled hint at genocide.

There is no Archealogical evidence for a struggle between Caananites and what was supposed to be the founders of the nation of Israel, btw. All mythic bollocks.

Heh, in fact, I would argue the exact opposite...If the Palestineans got Jerusalem back, it would be a huge moral-boost to the muslim terrorist organizations and they'd increase their activities. They've allways claimed to want to "push the Jews back into the sea", a thinly-veiled hint at genocide.

http://www.foodsubs.com/Photos/clam-quahog.jpg

It was either an accident, a disobeyed order, or the Palestineans did it to make some more propaganda...It's not like they're above killing innocents, even their own.


It is too soon to presume anything. Lets get the facts. Right now it does not look good for Israel.

Well, if we're going back to the original owners, them they are.

And if they don't exist, we clone them from tombs and give them back their land.

:p

Just...

:p

Heh, in fact, I would argue the exact opposite...If the Palestineans got Jerusalem back, it would be a huge moral-boost to the muslim terrorist organizations and they'd increase their activities. They've allways claimed to want to "push the Jews back into the sea", a thinly-veiled hint at genocide.

Yes, because they're so known for being subtle in the rhetoric and names. Like "Islamic Jihad". I wonder what that organisation does.....

There is no Archealogical evidence for a struggle between Caananites and what was supposed to be the founders of the nation of Israel, btw. All mythic bollocks.
Not according to the almighty Wiki.

6.93% was Jewish owned if you go by the figures from the "Jewish Virual Library" (400,000 acres). However I am glad that you at least state that Arabs owned land. Compared to some here thats progressive thinking. You unfortunately take a wayward walk through the confused wood when speaking about the land division after that, however.

And why is Wiki "biased against Jews"?

The land division never happened as intended, as the palestinians rejected the plan. I am not saying the present state of affairs is a good thing, and I fully recognise that it was a fucked plan from step 1, but the actions of terrorists who target civilians and terrorist apologizers who turn around and berate Israel for it's actions today push me further into the Israeli camp daily.

To sum up this thread briefly:

Palestinians use terror strikes to kill civilians intentionally.
Israel targets palestinian militants in an effort to defend themselves from terrorism, but sometimes accidently kill civilians.

Wiki in general isn't anti-Israel, but the article in question has a pro-palestinian slant. The problem with an encyclopedia anyone with internet access can modify- whoever writes/edits the article puts their own bias into it.

Yes, because they're so known for being subtle in the rhetoric and names. Like "Islamic Jihad". I wonder what that organisation does.....

Why, they hold nice, civilised tea parties, of course. ;)

I'm done with this. I'm off to kill things on Star Wars Battlefront II.

Yes, because they're so known for being subtle in the rhetoric and names. Like "Islamic Jihad". I wonder what that organisation does.....

Bake pies?

http://muhammadfarms.com/Bean%20pie%202.jpg

http://www.foodsubs.com/Photos/clam-quahog.jpg
I'm sorry, but what is that supposed to mean, anyway?

I'm sorry, but what is that supposed to mean, anyway?

It's a Clam.

It's a Clam.
:eek: No!

It's a Clam.
Yes, I know it's a clam, but what did it have to do with my post that you quoted above it?

:eek: No!

Indeed.

Yes, I know it's a clam, but what did it have to do with my post that you quoted above it?

Do I really need a reason to post a Clam?

Do I really need a reason to post a Clam?

Of course not. I, for one, always appreciate a good clean Clam.

Do I really need a reason to post a Clam?
Yeah. Shellfish aren't kosher.

Do I really need a reason to post a Clam?
I have no idea. :p

Do I really need a reason to post a Clam?
Can I have some of what you're smoking? :D

Of course not. I, for one, always appreciate a good clean Clam.

Indeed, Clams are "teh l33t HaX0z0rZ"...

Can I have some of what you're smoking? :D

This is how I am normally.

Disturbing, no?

This is how I am normally.

Disturbing, no?
Then let's get you stoned, I wanna see what happens then. :p

Then let's get you stoned, I wanna see what happens then. :p
Unlike others, I refuse to post in any state of artificial delusion or intoxication.

Unlike others, I refuse to post in any state of artificial delusion or intoxication.
The key word here is "artificial"... "Artificial". :cool:

Well, if we're going back to the original owners, them they are.

And if they don't exist, we clone them from tombs and give them back their land.

I suggest we just keep going back until we find someone sensible (who doesn’t want to kill to get it back). Since just about everyone who doesn't live in Africa must have had ancestors who lived in the region (some much more recent than others) we should be able to find someone.

Just my 2 cents...However late they are, as the conversation has moved on by now.

Technically, the Israeli's and Palestinians both have fairly equal rights to the land. Both owned the land for long periods of time at different times. What they need to do is reach an agreement. However, that agreement was suggested by European mediators in the late 40's, and was rejected, And another one will probably not be reached until one side is totally evicted, which will most like involve genocide or a full scale war as neither side is going to leave voluntarily.

The key word here is "artificial"... "Artificial". :cool:
Well, I do live in my own state of delusion.

But it's good because it's All-Natural.

Unlike others, I refuse to post in any state of artificial delusion or intoxication.


Never stops me. ;)

For all those who claim israel never kills civilians intentionally just look at this video and show me what excuse u re going to come up with to defend the IDF
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/950000/video/_952600_shooting2_vi.ram

Never stops me. ;)
I'm not you. (thank Myrth)

I'm not you. (thank Myrth)

Your loss. ;)

Your loss. ;)

My Squid.

http://can-do.com/uci/lessons98/squid.jpg

My Squid.

http://can-do.com/uci/lessons98/squid.jpg
MY Panda.
http://www.pandafix.com/pandafix/images/untitled.jpg

My yak.

http://www.rarebreeds.co.nz/yak.jpg

My Whale.

http://www.newburyportwhalewatch.com/images/%20Inflatable%20whale%202%20for%20web.jpg

My manatee.

http://uplink.space.com/attachments/380109-manatee.jpg

My platypus.
http://www.tapirback.com/tapirgal/gifts/friends/mixed/platypus-stuffed-plush-f787.jpg

My Ass.

http://www.rakemag.com/today/readmenace/archive/mule.JPG

My Ass.

http://www.rakemag.com/today/readmenace/archive/mule.JPG
May I ride your ass? :D

My Ass.


I was waiting for that. :D

I was waiting for that. :D

Isn't my ass nice?

Why the **** would they bomb a beach with Artillery. Wouldn't have been better to just send a plane over it? That way they could at least see if they were people building Rockets or some people on the beach.

Isn't my ass nice?

That's hot.

/Paris Hilton

Why the **** would they bomb a beach with Artillery. Wouldn't have been better to just send a plane over it? That way they could at least see if they were people building Rockets or some people on the beach.
WTF does that have to do with donkeys or pandas? Jesus. Stay off-topic, noob.

That's hot.

/Paris Hilton

Nono, this is hot...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40241000/jpg/_40241631_carmen_paris_ap.jpg

Nono, this is hot...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40241000/jpg/_40241631_carmen_paris_ap.jpg


I think I need a little Cluich time now...

I think I need a little Cluich time now...

Is that what you call it?

:)

Is that what you call it?

:)

Yup! :D

Yup! :D

My Little TSI...

http://phototravels.net/paris/N0031/paris-eiffel-tower-23.2.jpg

Gaze apon it's towering glory!

7 palestineans including 3 children and 2 women from one family spending the day at the beach in Gaza were bombed by israeli battleships.

Were those children and women terrorists threatening the peace of israel?
:mad: :headbang:

Who is the automatically say that this attack was from a battleship or Isreal?

If you read the article and watch the video at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5065982.stm ... you will see that a statement was made by the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) to avenge Samhadana's death.

In the video it shows militants shooting off as well as making missiles that are launched into Isreal ... I could give a rats ass about either side in this conflict personally ... it seems as if they are both throwing stones.

But I do have to question the fact that one of these homemade missiles could indeed go off course and in fact injure something other than its intented target.

My emu.

http://www.webfocus.co.nz/webfocus/photos/pic-emu.jpg

My god.

http://www.venganza.org/images/wallpapers/3d1024x768.jpg

My Prokaryote.

http://www.prokaryote.com/prokaryote.jpg

Who is the automatically say that this attack was from a battleship or Isreal?

If you read the article and watch the video at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5065982.stm ... you will see that a statement was made by the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) to avenge Samhadana's death.

In the video it shows militants shooting off as well as making missiles that are launched into Isreal ... I could give a rats ass about either side in this conflict personally ... it seems as if they are both throwing stones.

But I do have to question the fact that one of these homemade missiles could indeed go off course and in fact injure something other than its intented target.

even CNN (which is usually very biased) said they were killed by an israeli gunboat...

are you guys having fun hijacking the thread so we can't talk about the murder of 7 innocent people by the israelis or what!?

even CNN said they were killed by an israeli gunboat...

Not a battleship, though, as you claimed in your original post. Get a clue, then come back.

are you guys having fun hijacking the thread so we can't talk about the murder of 7 innocent people by the israelis or what!?

You must be new here. 'jacking threads is how we deal with trolls.

are you guys having fun hijacking the thread so we can't talk about the murder of 7 innocent people by the israelis or what!?


My wombat.

http://www.pbs.org/edens/tasmania/pics/photos/wombat.jpg

Not a battleship, though, as you claimed in your original post. Get a clue, then come back.
a gunboat is a battleship!

You must be new here. 'jacking threads is how we deal with trolls.

Teh winnar! :D

a gunboat is a battleship!

Uh...no, it isn't. Now, run along. Really. Shoo.

You must be new here. 'jacking threads is how we deal with trolls.

well too bad that even the MSM are talking about this murder you can always try your luck and hijack those also although u must only want watch FOX..

a gunboat is a battleship!
:eek: The idiocy just.... :eek: A battleship is a class of warship, a gunboat is so much smaller it's not even funny. Buy a clue.

well too bad that even the MSM are talking about this murder you can always try your luck and hijack those also although u must only want watch FOX..
Actually I agree with him, and regularly watch one hour of fox and one hour of CNN to throughly disgust myself with the world.:p

well too bad that even the MSM are talking about this murder you can always try your luck and hijack those also although u must only want watch FOX..

What you call "murder", we call an accident. They were trying to take out the murderers, but hit civilians by mistake. Which your people do INTENTIONALLY.

And I watch Democracy Now, actually.

:eek: The idiocy just.... :eek: A battleship is a class of warship, a gunboat is so much smaller it's not even funny. Buy a clue.

Thank you! Finally!

http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/4/46/468/468509/gaza3a.jpg
Picture... No gore or details, just to show the area where the artillery hit.

There is something very odd about that beach......

Thank you! Finally!

already told you i don't give a fuck what the israeli used to kill a family enjoying a sunny afternoon at the beach.
all i care about is that 3 children are now dead b/c israel decided they were terrorists

already told you i don't give a fuck what the israeli used to kill a family enjoying a sunny afternoon at the beach.
all i care about is that 3 children are now dead b/c israel decided they were terrorists

OMGooses!!!1 WTF? I cant use english!!!!eleven

I'm sorry but the land, or at least the vast majority of it, was not purchased.

Would you care to provide a source for your claim, and a rough estimate of what acreage was purchased by 1947?

This is correct. Here is a link to an article written by the credible Anti-Defamation League explaining how Israel came to be a sovereign nation and how it got its land. There is NO MENTION OF A TRANSFER OF MONEY, ANYTHING BOUGHT OR ANYTHING SOLD. Israel is simply a left over scrap of the British Empire.

http://www.adl.org/Israel/Record/creation.asp

excerpts follow:

" Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, the British assumed control of Palestine. In November 1917, the British government issued the Balfour Declaration, announcing its intention to facilitate the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." In 1922, the League of Nations granted Britain a mandate over Palestine which included, among other things, provisions calling for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, facilitating Jewish immigration and encouraging Jewish settlement on the land.

<snip>

The British concluded that they could no longer manage Palestine and handed the issue over to the United Nations. On November 29, 1947, after much debate and discussion, the UN recommended the partition of Palestine into two states * one Jewish and one Arab. The Jews accepted the UN resolution while the Arabs rejected it. "

No it seems you fail at history, the british were a foreign army in Palestine, just like the american army in Iraq.
Following your logic the americans can create tomorrow a jewish state in Iraq.

The cat is out of the bag....

The cat is out of the bag....

Don't be a fucktard.

My Fucktard/brownie.

http://www.supereggplant.com/archives/choc%20chip%20brownie.JPG

http://www.mylanta.com/images/mylanta/home/home3_1.jpg

TSI rules! :D

TSI rules! :D

iSig!

Score! :D

Don't be a fucktard.

That's asking quite a bit of me....:p

That's asking quite a bit of me....:p

Apparently.

Meet the new Israeli massacre.

Same as the old Israeli massacre.

Ahhh...Israel, you never cease to sicken me.

i don't know or care what israel has all i know is that israeli murderes killed a family spending the day at the beach in cold blood and some people are finding excuses for its actions!:mp5:


Yup, just like all the people that make excuses for the Palestinian suicide bomber that kills many innocent civilians in a bar, shopping center café or what ever, guess those are perfectly justifiable acts of murder. In cold blood, always way too many people being able to justify the actions of terrorist.

already told you i don't give a fuck what the israeli used to kill a family enjoying a sunny afternoon at the beach.
all i care about is that 3 children are now dead b/c israel decided they were terrorists

I havn't been keeping up with this thread, but I'll go ahead and respond to this one since it about sums up the anti-Israel stance on these boards (i.e. a knee-jerk response with no real knowledge of the subject matter whatsoever).

Quotes are from this article (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1149572649819&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) in the Jerusalem Post.

1. Israel didn't decide that they were terrorists and target the family. In fact, a full investigation of what happened hasn't even gone through. Its even possible this was an unexploded shell being tampered with on the beach. From the Jeruslaem Post:

According to Galant, the IDF is currently investigating two possible options:misfiring of an artillery round or a dud that exploded on the Gaza beach.

2. I saw a few posts talking about IDF gunships shelling the beach from the sea. That was the original hypothesis (because that is how it appeared), and you may be still hearing that in Western media, but as the investigation has been under way we've come to learn that there was no shelling on the coast of Gaza during that day, and that if it was a misfire then it was a result of ground artillery, not IDF gunships at sea:

"Head of the IDF's Southern Command, Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant ruled out that navy shelling off the coast of Gaza or bombs fired by IAF jets brought about the death of the 12 Palestinians earlier in the day."

"Though Palestinians reported that the shells came from a navy warship, an Israeli investigation found that no Israeli warships or fighter planes had been firing at the time. The possibility that the shells came from ground artillery was being investigated, and Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz ordered a suspension of all artillery fire until the investigation was complete."

3. I know its been said, but I'll say it again. The misfiring of artillery that kills civilians is an accident. The IDF has apologized for this, and gave direct medical aid to all of the injured in the area:

"The IDF confirmed the Gaza coast deaths, saying that it regretted the harm done to innocent civilians and offering the Palestinians any assistance needed, including evacuation to Israeli hospitals."

Contrast this with the terror operations against Israel. They are different because they deliberately target civilians, whereas this was an accident. They are different because Palestinian hospitals will never treat Israeli-Jews wounded in the Occupied Territories (but will treat Israeli-Arabs. Its a case of pure anti-Semitism), but Israeli hospitals routinely save the lives of many Palestinian innocents, as well as Palestinian terrorists who attack Israel.

4. The accidential killing of citizens is legal under international law, falling under the clause of 'reasonable collateral damage.' While countries like Egypt, which continue to violate international humanitarian law today (such as in theri state-sponsored torture of criminals), cry out in response to things like this that they violate international law, the fact of the matter is that they don't. International law recognizes and acknowledges the fact that civilians will be killed in military operations, and any civilian deaths that happen accidentally as a result of military action don't violate international law in any way.

Again, contrast this with the terror groups like Hamas, which deliberately target civilians. There is no question this is against international law. Or the neighboring Arab states, which deliberately torture and kill their own Arab citizens. Again, against international law. In the broad scope, there are far more violations of intnl. law by the Arab groups than the Israeli groups.

5. It is a fact that today more innocent Israelis have been killed as a result of Palestinian terror than innocent Palestinians killed as a result of Israeli military operations. Yes, more Palestinians have been killed, because they are losing the conflict. However, more innocent Israelis have been killed, almost three times as many. The vast majority of Palestinians killed in the conflict are terrorists or engaged in illegal activity against Israel. In addition, the IDF reports that it intercepts 80% of attepted terrorist attacks against Israel, with only 20% actually getting past security to be carried out. Thus, there are far more attempts against innocent Israeli civilians as well.

The Boston Globe reported, "18 percent of the nearly 2,000 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces since the uprising began in September 2000 were civilians with no connection to acts of terror."

Thus, when you do the math, you will find that almost three times as many Israeli civilians have been killed as a result of Palestinian terror than innocent Palestinians, around 1200 Israelis and around 400 Palestinians. This is far less citizens than have been killed in the Iraqi occupation, in a shorter period of time, whose number at a conservative count is over 30,000. According to statistics, Israel has been extremely controlled and avoided civilian casualties, compared to other conflicts around the world of a similar nature, and compared to Palestinian attacks against Israel.

Yet, Israel is singled out and demonized for its few, spurious mistakes. It goes to show the extreme hatred and bias against Jews, and Israel, from the anti-Israel crowd.

6. Today there is still no Palestinian state. Nor does a Palestinian political entity own any of the land in the Occupied Territories. I've heard terrorist attacks against Israel justified on the grounds that Israel is occuping Palestinian land. This is not the case, as there is no such thing today as "Palestinian land." The land, currently, is not owned by any national body. It was originally suppossed to be Palestinian land, then it was annexed by Egypt and Jordan, and Syria. Those are the only countries that ever stole anything from Palestinians. Israel took it from those countries. Today, the area over the green line still hasn't been annexed by Israel, and Israel is waiting for Palestinians to achieve statehood so that they can claim their own land.

But it is a silly claim to say that Israel is occupying Palestinian land, when there is no such thing.

In the video it shows militants shooting off as well as making missiles that are launched into Isreal ... I could give a rats ass about either side in this conflict personally ... it seems as if they are both throwing stones.

But I do have to question the fact that one of these homemade missiles could indeed go off course and in fact injure something other than its intented target.

Those homemade qassam missles don't actually have well defined targets. They are unguided to the extreme, and are often so inaccurate they miss their intended area completely, falling in open fields.

But, the only intended targets are Israeli cities. They are aimed for civilian areas within cities, like Sderot. Again, the agenda of the Palestinians is to kill civilians with these missiles, and that is why they are indiscriminately launched into civilian areas.

So it isn't as if they are launched by guerilla groups at valid military targets within Israel. They are launched into cities by terrorist groups and intended to kill innocent civilians.

Those homemade qassam missles don't actually have well defined targets. They are unguided to the extreme, and are often so inaccurate they miss their intended area completely, falling in open fields.

But, the only intended targets are Israeli cities. They are aimed for civilian areas within cities, like Sderot. Again, the agenda of the Palestinians is to kill civilians with these missiles, and that is why they are indiscriminately launched into civilian areas.

So it isn't as if they are launched by guerilla groups at valid military targets within Israel. They are launched into cities by terrorist groups and intended to kill innocent civilians.

That is kind of what I am saying ... these things are homemade and highly inaccurate. Its a little quick to assume that the device came from a ship at this time.

That is kind of what I am saying ... these things are homemade and highly inaccurate. Its a little quick to assume that the device came from a ship at this time.

I think you're confusing the homemade qassam rockets the terrorists make with the artillery from the IDF. The original claim by the Palestinians was that the beach was shelled by an IDF gunship, whereas qassam rockets are made by terrorists and launched into civilian areas. They are two different issues, no qassam rockets were involved in this incident.

I think you're confusing the homemade qassam rockets the terrorists make with the artillery from the IDF. The original claim by the Palestinians was that the beach was shelled by an IDF gunship, whereas qassam rockets are made by terrorists and launched into civilian areas. They are two different issues, no qassam rockets were involved in this incident.

I am not confusing the two issues. I am actually saying that it is too soon to blame an IDF Gunship ... and that this rocket could have indeed been fired by a terrorist and hit something other than its intended target. What proof is there at this time to say it was not a qassam rocket?

I am not confusing the two issues. I am actually saying that it is too soon to blame an IDF Gunship ... and that this rocket could have indeed been fired by a terrorist and hit something other than its intended target. What proof is there at this time to say it was not a qassam rocket?

Well, in all fairness, the IDF has already apologized and taken responsibility for this. It was originally reported that it was the result of a gunship, but we now know that there were no gunships shelling the beach at this time, but there was artillery fire elsewhere. Most likely, like the IDF stated, it was a misfire from the shelling of terrorist locations or an old shell that hadn't exploded and was tampered with.

Its always possible it was the result of terrorist actions, and that there is some big mixup, but considering that the IDF has already taken responsibility for it I doubt that is the case in this situation.

Well the UN, France, Russia, China and Spain condemned the excessive use of force by israel while the US didn't have any comments and some people still innocently wonder why people in the middle east hate the US.:headbang:

Well the UN, France, Russia, China and Spain condemned the excessive use of force by israel while the US didn't have any comments and some people still innocently wonder why people in the middle east hate the US.:headbang:

Why is it that the anti-Israel crowd attempts to lean on popular world opinion when it suits their agenda, but they reject/ignore it when it doesn't fit their agenda? Double standards.

And, on that note, it would be worth noting how many countries condemn Hamas for breaking its hudna and attempting to launch qassam rockets into civilian centers, in violation of international law. If the UN, France, Russia, China, or Spain don't condemn this action in response, but only condemn the accidential misfiring of an Israeli artillery shell, then we have conclusive proof of the anti-Israeli double standard in world politics.

Now I'll wait for someone to defend terrorist actions against civilians by Palestinians but condemn accidental collateral damage by Israelis. Lets see how far we can stretch these double standards.

hey this sound like a really good idea, what courts should the palestineans go to to evict israel from their land? the israeli courts?

The world court maybe?

The world court maybe?


Ah, more frivolous lawsuits.

The palestinians had aaaaaaallll the chance in the world to get the biggest slice of the pie in 1947.
But they didn't like the World Order, and went bitching, biting and fighting.


Guess what? Ass out, biatches!

Well the UN, France, Russia, China and Spain condemned the excessive use of force by israel while the US didn't have any comments and some people still innocently wonder why people in the middle east hate the US.:headbang:

While Israel and the USA (In supporting them) are doing themselves no favours in their stance in the Israeli-Palestine conflict, it doesn't justify the terrorism in any way at all.

Israel is little better than the terrorists themselves - neither they or Hamas have done anything to make peace more likely. Israel violates agreements and international law (which they can only do because of US support) and the terrorists cannot be controlled by anything short of simply nuking Palestine.

Independent state on 1967 Borders = Peace. Land-grabbing by Israel ≠ Peace. It's that simple.

7 palestineans including 3 children and 2 women from one family spending the day at the beach in Gaza were bombed by israeli battleships.

Were those children and women terrorists threatening the peace of israel?
:mad: :headbang:
Very funny. How the fuck do you "bomb" from a battleship?? Nothing like distorting the facts to suit your own perverted concepts. It wasn't a "bomb," it was a stray artillery shell. When you're under constant attack from the dementos of Hamas, accidents which kill innocents are the inevitable result.

hey this sound like a really good idea, what courts should the palestineans go to to evict israel from their land? the israeli courts?The world court maybe?

Under international law, the Palestinians have no land. There has never been a soverign Palestinian state. In addition, the world court can only work by treaty; a Palestinian group can't take anything to the world court because they don't don't have political soverignity. There are exceptions, but this is the general rule.

Keep in mind, Israel hasn't stolen or annexed any Palestinian land in violation of international law. The world court (ICJ, international court of justice) doesn't have any problems with the state of Israel existing, and the only annexations it has problems with is that of Syrian or Jordanian land, not of a Palestinian land that doesn't exist.

While Israel and the USA (In supporting them) are doing themselves no favours in their stance in the Israeli-Palestine conflict, it doesn't justify the terrorism in any way at all.

Israel is little better than the terrorists themselves - neither they or Hamas have done anything to make peace more likely. Israel violates agreements and international law (which they can only do because of US support) and the terrorists cannot be controlled by anything short of simply nuking Palestine.

Independent state on 1967 Borders = Peace. Land-grabbing by Israel ≠ Peace. It's that simple.
No it isn't, and I suspect you know it. :(

Independent state on 1967 Borders = Peace. Land-grabbing by Israel ≠ Peace. It's that simple.

So, why did Palestinians reject an independent state based on the 1967 borders during the Oslo and Camp David accords? This was exactly what was offered by Barak, yet it was rejected.

History would seem to disagree with you here.

Why is it that the anti-Israel crowd attempts to lean on popular world opinion when it suits their agenda, but they reject/ignore it when it doesn't fit their agenda? Double standards.

And, on that note, it would be worth noting how many countries condemn Hamas for breaking its hudna and attempting to launch qassam rockets into civilian centers, in violation of international law. If the UN, France, Russia, China, or Spain don't condemn this action in response, but only condemn the accidential misfiring of an Israeli artillery shell, then we have conclusive proof of the anti-Israeli double standard in world politics.

Now I'll wait for someone to defend terrorist actions against civilians by Palestinians but condemn accidental collateral damage by Israelis. Lets see how far we can stretch these double standards.

i agree with you there are double standards but u're mixing the sides who have the double standards.

Whenever there are suicide bombings the same countries that condemned israel today will condemn hamas for killing innocent civilians.

On the other hand if any israeli civilian is killed by hamas, the US will condemn and label the palestineans as terrorists while it will refrain from making any comments when palestinean civilians are killed by israel even going to the extent of vetoing any UN resolution against israel.

and some people innocently wonder why people in the middle east hate the US!

i agree with you there are double standards but u're mixing the sides who have the double standards.

Whenever there are suicide bombings the same countries that condemned israel today will condemn hamas for killing innocent civilians.

On the other hand if any israeli civilian is killed by hamas, the US will condemn and label the palestineans as terrorists while it will refrain from making any comments when palestinean civilians are killed by israel even going to the extent of vetoing any UN resolution against israel.

and some people innocently wonder why people in the middle east hate the US!

We don't need to understand the why.
We merely need to know how to deal with it: by employing massive firepower.

Why is it that the anti-Israel crowd attempts to lean on popular world opinion when it suits their agenda, but they reject/ignore it when it doesn't fit their agenda? Double standards.

But it's not double standards for the US (for example) to support Taiwan Independence, Tibet independence and East Timorean Independence, but not Palestinian Independence?

And, on that note, it would be worth noting how many countries condemn Hamas for breaking its hudna and attempting to launch qassam rockets into civilian centers, in violation of international law. If the UN, France, Russia, China, or Spain don't condemn this action in response, but only condemn the accidential misfiring of an Israeli artillery shell, then we have conclusive proof of the anti-Israeli double standard in world politics.[/QUOTE]

Come on, do you really think the UN, France, Russia, China and Spain support Hamas? No. Israel has no business firing shells in Gaza-civillian, collateral damage, deliberate or not. Their occupation is illegal.

Now I'll wait for someone to defend terrorist actions against civilians by Palestinians but condemn accidental collateral damage by Israelis. Lets see how far we can stretch these double standards.

So, it's a black-and-white if you don't support zionist expansion and do support legal self-determination, you're a terrorist anti-semetic who supports the destruction of Israel and the killing of innocents.

The reason people support a Palestinian state is so that the bloodshend against civilians will end, not continue.

i agree with you there are double standards but u're mixing the sides who have the double standards.

Whenever there are suicide bombings the same countries that condemned israel today will condemn hamas for killing innocent civilians.

There are more UN resolutions against Israel than any terrorist group. That is clear evidence of the anti-Israeli bias in the United Nations.

On the other hand if any israeli civilian is killed by hamas, the US will condemn and label the palestineans as terrorists while it will refrain from making any comments when palestinean civilians are killed by israel even going to the extent of vetoing any UN resolution against israel.

When Hamas kills innocent civilians, it is because they target innocent civilians. This is a war crime. When Israel kills innocent civilians, it is accidental, not as a result of the intentional targeting of innocent civilians. This is legal under the rules of engagement, its called collateral damage. Thus, comparing Israel killing innocent civilians with Hamas killing innocent civilians is like comparing apples and oranges. The former is accidental, and legal under international law, while the latter is intentional and a war crime. Thus, you've slipped into the fallacy of questionable analogy.

Under international law, the Palestinians have no land. There has never been a soverign Palestinian state. In addition, the world court can only work by treaty; a Palestinian group can't take anything to the world court because they don't don't have political soverignity. There are exceptions, but this is the general rule.

Keep in mind, Israel hasn't stolen or annexed any Palestinian land in violation of international law. The world court (ICJ, international court of justice) doesn't have any problems with the state of Israel existing, and the only annexations it has problems with is that of Syrian or Jordanian land, not of a Palestinian land that doesn't exist.

it's not very nice to pick and choose what ICJ decisions to talk about, as the same ICJ ruled that the separation wall that israel is building is illegal yet that didn't stop israel from building it.

Furthermore there are half a dozen 40 years old UN resolutions saying that Israel's control of Jerusalem, the west bank and golan are illegal yet israel has chosen not to apply any of these resolutions.

We don't need to understand the why.
We merely need to know how to deal with it: by employing massive firepower.

be my guest employ massive firepower but then don't wonder why terrorist groups like al Qaeda have such a high support in the middle east or why some people were celebrating after 9/11

So, why did Palestinians reject an independent state based on the 1967 borders during the Oslo and Camp David accords? This was exactly what was offered by Barak, yet it was rejected.

History would seem to disagree with you here.

There was never an offer based on the 1967 borders - and Israel has violated Oslo anyway, as have the Terrorists.

The first agreement had three parts. The first part was a framework for negotiations to establish an autonomous self-governing authority in the West Bank and the Gaza strip and to fully implement SC 242. It was less clear than the agreements concerning the Sinai, and was later interpreted differently by Israel, Egypt, and the US.

An autonomous area in the West Bank hardly counts as an independent state, and even then the area controlled by the Authority is minimal.

The Arab Peace Initiative was based on the 1967 borders, but Israel rejected it. Suprise, Suprise.

But it's not double standards for the US (for example) to support Taiwan Independence, Tibet independence and East Timorean Independence, but not Palestinian Independence?

Who told you that the US doesn't support Palestinian independence? The offical stance of the US State Dept. has been a two state solution for as long as I can remember.

Come on, do you really think the UN, France, Russia, China and Spain support Hamas? No. Israel has no business firing shells in Gaza-civillian, collateral damage, deliberate or not. Their occupation is illegal.

Actually the occupation is perfectly legal under intnl law. The only questionable practice during the occupation has been the building of settlements. No one disputes that the occupation is perfectly legal from an actual legal basis anymore.

So, it's a black-and-white if you don't support zionist expansion and do support legal self-determination, you're a terrorist anti-semetic who supports the destruction of Israel and the killing of innocents.

From someone who didn't know that the US supports Palestinian independence and self-determination, I'm not surprised you believe there is some secret policy of "Zionist expansion" too.

The reason people support a Palestinian state is so that the bloodshend against civilians will end, not continue.

Alas, Israel has supported a Palestinian state for quite some time. So has the US, as I wrote above. However, the Palestinians (as dictated in the Hamas, PLO, etc. charters) do not support an Israeli state. Both the previous PLO charter and the current Hamas charter call for the complete destruction of Israel and the forceful explusion of all Jews from the land.

Israel, on the other hand, has an open offer to Hamas and all other Palestinian groups for talks of self-determination at any time. The two conditions are that they must stop violence against Israel and recognize Israel's right to exist. The reason the Palestinians are not engaged in peace talks right now is because Hamas refuses both of those conditions.

There was never an offer based on the 1967 borders - and Israel has violated Oslo anyway, as have the Terrorists.

The offer based on the 1968 borders was given at Camp David.

In fact, when it was rejected, it was condemned by the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt as "criminal."

it's not very nice to pick and choose what ICJ decisions to talk about, as the same ICJ ruled that the separation wall that israel is building is illegal yet that didn't stop israel from building it.

Surprise surprise, someone else who doesn't understand how international law works.

Israel never engaged in any treaties regarding the wall, and according to the ICJ charter, it actually had no jurisdiction to rule on Israeli affairs regarding the separation wall. While the ICJ stated that the wall violated international law, the ICJ declaration of this did not become international law. Thus, according to intnl law, the wall is legal. Again, no one actually familiar with intnl law disputes this.

Furthermore there are half a dozen 40 years old UN resolutions saying that Israel's control of Jerusalem, the west bank and golan are illegal yet israel has chosen not to apply any of these resolutions.

This was after Jordan and Syria annexed those lands after invading mandatory Palestine. Israel took the land from Jordan and Syria, and annexed it. Now, Jordan and Syria have both renounced title to those lands, rendering any annexation clauses null and void.

But I'm sure you knew all that already, right?

The offer based on the 1968 borders was given at Camp David.

In fact, when it was rejected, it was condemned by the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt as "criminal."

please don't mix things it was rejected b/c
1)it didn't include the right of return or any compensation by israel paid to the people who had to leave their lands when israel was created.
2) the jerusalem issue

but i'm sure you already knew that right?

When Hamas kills innocent civilians, it is because they target innocent civilians. This is a war crime. When Israel kills innocent civilians, it is accidental, not as a result of the intentional targeting of innocent civilians. This is legal under the rules of engagement, its called collateral damage. Thus, comparing Israel killing innocent civilians with Hamas killing innocent civilians is like comparing apples and oranges. The former is accidental, and legal under international law, while the latter is intentional and a war crime. Thus, you've slipped into the fallacy of questionable analogy.

While I do tend to agree with you - the shelling yesterday was excessive and unjustified as far as I can see. The fact that Israel says that terrorists were launching attacks from that vicinity does not justify their indiscriminate shelling. They should investigate, admit any errors, prosecute those responsible, make ammends with those affected, and modify future policy or they should be condemned the same as any terrorist attack.

The fact that the Palestinians are not enforcing law there and allowing attacks does not justify indiscriminate shelling.

please don't mix things it was rejected b/c
1)it didn't include the right of return or any compensation by israel paid to the people who had to leave their lands when israel was created.
2) the jerusalem issue

Why would it have to include the right of return? The claim for the right of return was rejected by Bill Clinton, the lead negotiator Dennis Ross, Prince Abdullah II of Jordan, Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, President of Egypt Honsi Mubarak, King Mohammad IV of Morocoo, and President of Tunisia, Zine ben Ali.

Keep in mind, the Arab leadership broke it off with Arafat after he rejected this deal. They called him criminal, and his rejection of this deal a crime to the Arab people and the whole region. There was no valid reason to reject it, and the Arab leadership of the Middle East realized this fact, and that is why Arafat was condemned as a criminal by the Arab leadership listed above, as well as the neutral, third party involved.

While I do tend to agree with you - the shelling yesterday was excessive and unjustified as far as I can see. The fact that Israel says that terrorists were launching attacks from that vicinity does not justify their indiscriminate shelling. They should investigate, admit any errors, prosecute those responsible, make ammends with those affected, and modify future policy or they should be condemned the same as any terrorist attack.

Who said Israel claimed terrorists were launching attacks from that vicinity? The offical IDF report was that this was a misfiring of an artillery shell. In addition, the IDF has already admitted the error, taken responsibility, and admitted all of the injured to the best Israeli hospitals. I've posted this in a previous post.

Can you explain how the accidental misfiring of an artillery shell can be 'excessive' or anything except an unavoidable accident?

Who said Israel claimed terrorists were launching attacks from that vicinity? The offical IDF report was that this was a misfiring of an artillery shell. In addition, the IDF has already admitted the error, taken responsibility, and admitted all of the injured to the best Israeli hospitals. I've posted this in a previous post.

Can you explain how the accidental misfiring of an artillery shell can be 'excessive' or anything except an unavoidable accident?

It is aviodable - if the Israelis weren't in Palestine to start with, the Terrorism problem wouldn't be half as bad as it is now, if at all, and shelling left, right and centre wouldn't need to happen.

It is aviodable - if the Israelis weren't in Palestine to start with, the Terrorism problem wouldn't be half as bad as it is now, if at all, and shelling left, right and centre wouldn't need to happen.

Israelis aren't in Gaza, where the shelling occured.

Yet, terrorism has increased since Israeli has withdrawn from Gaza.

Once again, it would seem that history disagrees with you.

I haven't read the entire thread, but just a note:

The death of seven people is not a massacre.

I'm not belittling the tradgedy of the deaths - in fact, the article on the first page gives no information as to the purpose and outcome of the attack, and spoke to no official sources from the Israeli army. So we really have very little information about this. And calling what could have been a targeted attack, or could have been an accident, or could have been a cruel mistake a massacre is just innacurate and misleading.

Who said Israel claimed terrorists were launching attacks from that vicinity? The offical IDF report was that this was a misfiring of an artillery shell. In addition, the IDF has already admitted the error, taken responsibility, and admitted all of the injured to the best Israeli hospitals. I've posted this in a previous post.

Can you explain how the accidental misfiring of an artillery shell can be 'excessive' or anything except an unavoidable accident?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/10/mideast/index.html?eref=yahoo
The IDF said earlier it had been firing on rocket-launching areas in Gaza after a militant attack earlier in the day. The target areas were believed to be uninhabited, a representative said.

Let face it ppl the isralis have enough fire power to pound the opposing forces back to the stone age, so i guess its more like target practise for them. I think the Russian military should supply the palesteins with equivalent fire power and let em battle it out.

I haven't read the entire thread, but just a note:

The death of seven people is not a massacre.

I'm not belittling the tradgedy of the deaths - in fact, the article on the first page gives no information as to the purpose and outcome of the attack, and spoke to no official sources from the Israeli army. So we really have very little information about this. And calling what could have been a targeted attack, or could have been an accident, or could have been a cruel mistake a massacre is just innacurate and misleading.

I was thinking the exact same thing. Although the official death count has risen to twelve, it isn't a massacre by definition. We don't call the spurious terrorist attacks on Israelis by Palestinians (which have killed more innocent Israelis than innocent Palestinians killed by the IDF) massacres, even when they kill more than twelve people.

And since the opening post, the IDF has given us information on the purpose, the outcome, etc. So far, it would appear to be that this was the accidental misfiring of an artillery shell. It wasn't a targetted attack against any group, civilian or terrorist.

Let face it ppl the isralis have enough fire power to pound the opposing forces back to the stone age, so i guess its more like target practise for them. I think the Russian military should supply the palesteins with equivalent fire power and let em battle it out.

I disagree.
Battle it out right now, as-you-are.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/10/mideast/index.html?eref=yahoo
The IDF said earlier it had been firing on rocket-launching areas in Gaza after a militant attack earlier in the day. The target areas were believed to be uninhabited, a representative said.

Oh, so by vicinity you mean as wide a definition as all of Gaza?

Because the IDF was not launching attacks against any Gazan beaches, or any populated areas, or anywhere near where the artillery shell landed, as the article discloses. Except for a misfiring, there is no reason to claim that the Israelis were launching anything in the vicinity - and by vicinity I mean the beach, not unpopulated areas used as terrorist basses that are located kilometers away.

Let face it ppl the isralis have enough fire power to pound the opposing forces back to the stone age, so i guess its more like target practise for them. I think the Russian military should supply the palesteins with equivalent fire power and let em battle it out.

Palestinians would just kill each other with the fire power. There is as much internal violence within the Occupied Territories as there is between Palestinians and Israelis. Not to mention that the rates of Palestinians killed by Palestinians exceed that of Palestinians killed by Israelis.

Maybe you want to give the Palestinians Russian weapons so they can kill their own people off?

Actually the occupation is perfectly legal under intnl law. The only questionable practice during the occupation has been the building of settlements. No one disputes that the occupation is perfectly legal from an actual legal basis anymore.
Incorrect. Some people disputes this.


Israel never engaged in any treaties regarding the wall, and according to the ICJ charter, it actually had no jurisdiction to rule on Israeli affairs regarding the separation wall. While the ICJ stated that the wall violated international law, the ICJ declaration of this did not become international law. Thus, according to intnl law, the wall is legal. Again, no one actually familiar with intnl law disputes this.
Incorrect. Some people familiar with international law disputes this. Even some who are instrumental in creating international law disputes this. You know, like the General Assembly (http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/97360ee7a29e68a085256df900723485/6da605bd43667fe185256dce00617927!OpenDocument) of the UN?

Let face it ppl the isralis have enough fire power to pound the opposing forces back to the stone age, so i guess its more like target practise for them. I think the Russian military should supply the palesteins with equivalent fire power and let em battle it out.
The Russians can't supply the Palestinians with "equivalent firepower." The Russians don't have "equivalent firepower."

Not according to the almighty Wiki.

Wiki takes a fundamentalist view of the Bible? Mind you, I've never bothered to look at its Biblical sections(s) but I find that a bit much to believe.


This is correct. Here is a link to an article written by the credible Anti-Defamation League explaining how Israel came to be a sovereign nation and how it got its land. There is NO MENTION OF A TRANSFER OF MONEY, ANYTHING BOUGHT OR ANYTHING SOLD. Israel is simply a left over scrap of the British Empire.
http://www.adl.org/Israel/Record/creation.asp
excerpts follow:
" Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, the British assumed control of Palestine. In November 1917, the British government issued the Balfour Declaration, announcing its intention to facilitate the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." In 1922, the League of Nations granted Britain a mandate over Palestine which included, among other things, provisions calling for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, facilitating Jewish immigration and encouraging Jewish settlement on the land.
<snip>
The British concluded that they could no longer manage Palestine and handed the issue over to the United Nations. On November 29, 1947, after much debate and discussion, the UN recommended the partition of Palestine into two states * one Jewish and one Arab. The Jews accepted the UN resolution while the Arabs rejected it. ".

Which is true. Except that they took the remainder of what is now the modern state of Israel off the Arab Palestinians. By force and threat thereof. Now whether or not the Arab states should have attacked,the Palestinians should have accepted the agreement or should have just hugged and made up is neither here nor there - thats what happened, and I find the continual denial of it rather bizarre.


5. It is a fact that today more innocent Israelis have been killed as a result of Palestinian terror than innocent Palestinians killed as a result of Israeli military operations. Yes, more Palestinians have been killed, because they are losing the conflict. However, more innocent Israelis have been killed, almost three times as many. The vast majority of Palestinians killed in the conflict are terrorists or engaged in illegal activity against Israel. In addition, the IDF reports that it intercepts 80% of attepted terrorist attacks against Israel, with only 20% actually getting past security to be carried out. Thus, there are far more attempts against innocent Israeli civilians as well.".

So if they do, they don't, and just because they are, they aren't. More Palestinians have been killed my lad, because the IDF are a modern Army, and the Palestinians are yahoos with AKs. More of them are killed because Israel likes them to get the idea they'd be better off elsewhere. And mostly, more of them are killed because its their land thats occupied.


Yet, Israel is singled out and demonized for its few, spurious mistakes. It goes to show the extreme hatred and bias against Jews, and Israel, from the anti-Israel crowd..".

And he's off. You still owe me an apology and retraction btw.


Keep in mind, Israel hasn't stolen or annexed any Palestinian land in violation of international law...".

You really are getting sloppy when you go into semantics. They have annexed Arab East Jerusalem in "violation of international law". Look it up. Likewise all settlements outside the 1967 borders are in violation.


There are more UN resolutions against Israel than any terrorist group. That is clear evidence of the anti-Israeli bias in the United Nations....".

Caused by the US blocking action on previous ones. Hence it keeps coming up.

No one disputes that the occupation is perfectly legal from an actual legal basis anymore.....".

Just the majority of soverign nations on the Planet and most lawyers outside the US and Israeli govts.......

Thus, according to intnl law, the wall is legal. Again, no one actually familiar with intnl law disputes this......".

On the mere fact that it does not stay within Israels borders its illegal.

Can you explain how the accidental misfiring of an artillery shell can be 'excessive' or anything except an unavoidable accident?
You could try not to fire artillery into populated areas...
http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/4/46/468/468509/gaza3a.jpg
...without confirmation that the target area is not crowded with civilians...
The killings sparked swift and sustained outrage in the Palestinian territories and elsewhere. Israel said it had believed the beach was empty.
...then maybe this "unavoidable" accident could have been avoided?

Just to expound a bit on a previous post, lets look at some real massacres throughout history in contrast to the OP's claim that this Israeli accident was a massacre; keep in mind that more Jews have been killed as a result of Arab massacres than Arabs killed as a result of Jewish massacres:

Wikipedia: List of Massacres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres)

Battle of Kerbala, Iraq - 70 killed. "The grandson of the Prophet Mohammed, Husayn bin Ali and a small caravan including woman and children is stopped in the desert and after being isolated from food and water for 3 days all the men were mercilessly slaughtered by the armies of Yazid I, while the women and children were shackled and displayed as prisoners to the public."

Siege of Tripoli, 10,000+ killed. "Muslim conquest of crusader state. Whole population killed."

Siege of Antioch, 40,000 killed. "Baibars [Muslim Turks] destroys the city and massacres the population."

Siege of Tyre, 10,000 killed. "Baybars [Muslim Turks] destroys the city and massacres the population."

Sack of Otranto, 12,000 killed. "Sack of Otranto by the Turks, in which 12,000 men are said to have perished"

Chios Massacre, 42,000 killed. "Punitive expedition against the Greek Christian civilian population after a rebellion against the Ottoman Empire."

Armenian Genocide, 400,000 to 1.5 million killed. "Forced evacuation and mass murder of 400,000-1.5 million Armenians of Anatolia, during the government of the Young Turks."

Assyrian Genocide, 275,000 killed. "Assyrians of northern Mesopotamia was forcibly relocated and by Ottoman and Kurdish forces."

Pontian Greek Genocide, 350,000 killed. "Hundrends of thousands of Pontian Greeks perished while doing forced labour in the Ottoman Labour Battalions."

And now for some recent Arab massacres of Jews:

2002, Passover Massacre, 30 Israeli civilians murdered. (By Palestinians)

2003, Maxim Resturant Massacre, 21 Israeli civilians dead. (By Palestinians)

And sure, there are genuine Israeli massacres, like Deir Yassin. However, more Israelis have been killed since 1850 as a result of Arab massacres than Palestinians killed by Israelis. And there have been far more Arab massacres, such as the various attacks on Hebron, than Jewish massacres. No side is perfect, but history demonstrates that the Arabs and Palestinians have killed far, far more innocents throughout history, and in recent history, than Jews and Israelis.

Incorrect. Some people disputes this.

Such as? Any legal experts that claim that the ICJ's ruling became international law? Can you cite one?

Incorrect. Some people familiar with international law disputes this. Even some who are instrumental in creating international law disputes this. You know, like the General Assembly (http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/97360ee7a29e68a085256df900723485/6da605bd43667fe185256dce00617927!OpenDocument) of the UN?[/QUOTE]

The General Assembly agreed it was in violation of intnl law. The GA did not state, however, that the ICJ's ruling was international law on this issue, or that it had jurisdiction.

So if they do, they don't, and just because they are, they aren't. More Palestinians have been killed my lad, because the IDF are a modern Army, and the Palestinians are yahoos with AKs. More of them are killed because Israel likes them to get the idea they'd be better off elsewhere. And mostly, more of them are killed because its their land thats occupied.

I believe I've listed the statistics from the Boston Globe in this thread and previous ones. Yes, more Palestinians have been killed. However, the vast majority of these (82%) are killed as a result of terrorist activity. That is justified, legitimate killing. They are military targets. More Israeli civilians have been killed than Palestinian civilians, more Israeli innocenst have been killed than Palestinian innocents. Stastistical facts.

You really are getting sloppy when you go into semantics. They have annexed Arab East Jerusalem in "violation of international law". Look it up. Likewise all settlements outside the 1967 borders are in violation.

I know I've explained this on previous threads too, and I'm sure you know it by now. International law works via treaty. Unless you can show me where Israel engaged in any treaty binding it to such an agreement it broke, then it isn't committing any criminal, or illegal, offense. Yes, many states and the UN will acknowledge that what soverign states do is against international law, in their opinion, but soverign states are not bound by international law unless they engage in the treaties that bind them. So, can you show me such a treaty?

Just the majority of soverign nations on the Planet and most lawyers outside the US and Israeli govts.......

There isn't a soverign nation or a majority of lawyers that claim the ICJ has jurisidction over Israeli settlements, or that Israel engaged in the treaties that would bind them by such law.

On the mere fact that it does not stay within Israels borders its illegal.

Again, there is not a legal source of merit that claimed the ICJ has jurisdiction to rule on the separation fence. Even the ICJ did not claim to have jurisdiction when it came down to it, and thus the later decisions were the responsibility of the Israeli Surpreme Court.

You, like most NS General posters, don't seem to grasp how international law works. The ICJ making a ruling does not become international law unless Israel is under the jurisdiction and bound by treaty. This is clearly stated in the ICJ charter, and the ICJ as well as the international community acknowledges that it did not have jurisdiction over Israel on these issues.

However, it can still make rulings, that are non-binding. And this is what it did. So, the media loves to take the results of these rulings and ignore the context. This is why those not familiar with how international law, as well as the media, can put out stories that say "ZOMG, Israel is breaking the law!"

Jeez, when you hide among civilians, you don't expect some civilian deaths. We really should just put these damn fakes on their own little island in the Pacific or just push them into the sea. There will be no peace until the Palestinians go away.

Interesting...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3260958,00.html

"IDF: Palestinian bomb, dud may be behind Gaza incident"

I'll wait and see what the report says.

Such as? Any legal experts that claim that the ICJ's ruling became international law? Can you cite one?
Well, that is a different question altogether isn't it. No, noone is claiming that the ruling became international law, only that it is an indication of present international law. But this didn't have anything to do with the statement I responded to.


The General Assembly agreed it was in violation of intnl law. The GA did not state, however, that the ICJ's ruling was international law on this issue, or that it had jurisdiction.
No it did not say anything like that, and I haven't said that it did either. I'm just responding to your claim "Thus, according to intnl law, the wall is legal. Again, no one actually familiar with intnl law disputes this. " and I wanted to show that it's not a clear-cut case of.

Interesting...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3260958,00.html

"IDF: Palestinian bomb, dud may be behind Gaza incident"

I'll wait and see what the report says.

I read that too actually, in the Jerusalem Post. Since there was no shelling of the area, the only real conclusions that can be drawn are that it was a dud or that it was a misfire from artillery fire.

However, the Palestinians are notorious for taking tragedies like this and turning them to their advantage. The Prime Minister of Syria, Khalid al-Azm wrote in his memoirs:

"We have rendered [the Palestinians] dispossed. We have accustomed them to begging. We have participated in lowering their moral and social level. Then we exploted them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombgs upon men, women, and children - all this in the servie of political purposes."

And Benny Morris, and Israeli historian who is often called 'revisionist' by Israelis due to his hostility toward Zionism, and is favored by Arabs and liberals worldwide wrote:

"One of the chaacteristics of the Palestinian national movement has been the Palestinians' view of themselves as perpetual victims of others - Ottom Turks, British officials, Zionists, Americans - and never toa ppreciate that they are, at least in large part, victims of their own mistakes and iniquities. In the Palestinian Weltanschauung, they never set a foot wrong; their misfortunes are always the fault of others. The inevitable corollaery of this refusal to recognize their own historical agency has been a perpetual Palestinian wining - that, I fear, is the apt term - the outside world to save them from what is usually their own fault."

When it comes down to it, the Palestinians have a habit of taking their misfortunes and attempting to shift the blame onto Israel and others. This is a perfect instance of the Palestinian distortion; the fact that the Palestinians originally claimed that an Israeli gunboat fired the shell, which we now know was a total fabrication (from this article and the previous one I posted from the Jerusalem Post).

No it did not say anything like that, and I haven't said that it did either. I'm just responding to your claim "Thus, according to intnl law, the wall is legal. Again, no one actually familiar with intnl law disputes this. " and I wanted to show that it's not a clear-cut case of.

Alright, fair enough. There are many groups, such as the UN on this issue, that cry out "international law!" But currently, these are unbinding on Israel, because Israel has not engaged in the treaties. It is important to remember that international law is only binding by agreement and consent, by treaty; if a state does not engage in that treaty, it is not bound by international law. For the UN to claim that Israel is in violation of international law for building a fence, when it never gave its consent (as required by the ICJ), or engaged in any treaties of the sort, this is akin to someone in the United States claiming that someone in the Netherlands is violating the law by smoking marijuana. Yes, they are violating the law (the law of the United States), but not a law they are bound by.

Looks like this thread turned into another instance of "Go Israel! Bomb all the sand niggers to Allah!"

:rolleyes:

Looks like this thread turned into another instance of "Go Israel! Bomb all the sand niggers to Allah!"

:rolleye:

I wonder why you think that. When this tragedy occured, the IDF immediately took responsibility (without even knowing it was the fault of the IDF), rushed all of the Palestinian victims to the best Israeli hospitals, stopped shelling all terrorist bases in the Occupied Terrotiries (even those that had nothing to do with the Gaza beach), and began an intensive investigation into what really happened.

As the investigation continued, we've learned that there was no Israeli gunboat (the Palestinians lied), and that there may not have even been any shelling off the area; it may have been the result of Palestinians tampering with an unexploded shell.

The fact is, there is nothing more that can be asked of Israel in this case. An accident occured and Israel did everything within its power to handle it, without any idea whose fault it really was (except for the Palestinian claim that it was an IDF gunboat, which has been exposed as a lie since the investigation started). It acted with compassion and care to the wounded, something prohibited toward Jews in Palestinian hospitals. The only thing more that could be asked of Israel is "surrender to the Palestinians and stop fighting terror."

It's too bad...but war brings civilion deaths. Let's take Hiroshima, or Nagaski for instance.

And Dresden, Berlin, Munich, London, Coventry, and various other cities that were bombed back to the stone age.

Anyways....I'm hoping that the referendum being voted on July 26th passes. That would be a big step in the right direction.

And Dresden, Berlin, Munich, London, Coventry, and various other cities that were bombed back to the stone age.

Anyways....I'm hoping that the referendum being voted on July 26th passes. That would be a big step in the right direction.

Aye, it would. However, i'm pretty sure that Hamas will do all it can to make it as difficult as possible, although with all the checkpoints, and the fact Palestinians can't use major roads, it's hard enough already.

Aye, it would. However, i'm pretty sure that Hamas will do all it can to make it as difficult as possible, although with all the checkpoints, and the fact Palestinians can't use major roads, it's hard enough already.

We'll have to see how the vote goes. Hopefully it'll be approved because that means Israel will be recognized by Palestine and it'll be the beginning of two states.

We'll have to see how the vote goes. Hopefully it'll be approved because that means Israel will be recognized by Palestine and it'll be the beginning of two states.

It would be a tremendous boost to the peace process, two states with the Green Line as a border could live in relative peace.

It would be a tremendous boost to the peace process, two states with the Green Line as a border could live in relative peace.

I agree. It'll depend on the terror groups however.

My terror group.

http://www.musikmarkt-wiesbaden.de/images/DSCHINGIS%20KHAN%20moskau.JPG

Alright, fair enough. There are many groups, such as the UN on this issue, that cry out "international law!" But currently, these are unbinding on Israel, because Israel has not engaged in the treaties. It is important to remember that international law is only binding by agreement and consent, by treaty; if a state does not engage in that treaty, it is not bound by international law. For the UN to claim that Israel is in violation of international law for building a fence, when it never gave its consent (as required by the ICJ), or engaged in any treaties of the sort, this is akin to someone in the United States claiming that someone in the Netherlands is violating the law by smoking marijuana. Yes, they are violating the law (the law of the United States), but not a law they are bound by.
This is also inaccurate. You're forgetting about customary international law, which is binding for states even without that state's explicit consent.

And there are other sources of international law besides treaties and custom as well. A security council resolution counts as international law and is binding for the member states even if a state refuses to abide by it. (See for example Iraq)

And it is not a requirement that the ICJ has issued a ruling or opinion to establish that international law is violated.

This is also inaccurate. You're forgetting about customary international law, which is binding for states even without that state's explicit consent.

Well yes, customary international law isn't given with a state's explict consent. Its given with a state's implict consent, via its past history. Although, customary international law doesn't apply to any situation that Israel is currently engaged in.

And there are other sources of international law besides treaties and custom as well. A security council resolution counts as international law and is binding for the member states even if a state refuses to abide by it. (See for example Iraq)

Security council laws are only binding by treaty as well. This is because the member states engage in treaty to abide by security council resolutions, under the condition that they don't conflict with the state's sovreignity and security. This is one reason why a security council resolution on something like Israel's separation fence would be non-binding.

And it is not a requirement that the ICJ has issued a ruling or opinion to establish that international law is violated.

No, not in all cases. I don't think I ever said it was. A horizontal system allows for a number of sources to weigh in on international law, and the ICJ often takes a backseat role unless it is given explict consent and jurisdiction.

Well yes, customary international law isn't given with a state's explict consent. Its given with a state's implict consent, via its past history. Although, customary international law doesn't apply to any situation that Israel is currently engaged in.
Of course it does, in a lot of ways (like trade or diplomacy). Concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict however, it might be less influential but it still applies.
Security council laws are only binding by treaty as well. This is because the member states engage in treaty to abide by security council resolutions, under the condition that they don't conflict with the state's sovreignity and security. This is one reason why a security council resolution on something like Israel's separation fence would be non-binding.
My mistake, this time I was inaccurate:
One joins the UN by treaty, so it follows from the treaty that one is bound by the security council. However, if the Security council resolution stated that the fence was a threat to international peace and secuity and demanded that it was removed, this resolution would be binding for Israel as they are a member of the UN. And Israel would breach international law if they didn't comply.

Such a resolution will not come as long as the US has the power of veto however, whether such a strong statement has any merit or not.

No, not in all cases. I don't think I ever said it was. A horizontal system allows for a number of sources to weigh in on international law, and the ICJ often takes a backseat role unless it is given explict consent and jurisdiction.
Indeed, as it was meant to do.

It's too bad...but war brings civilion deaths. Let's take Hiroshima, or Nagaski for instance.

"What the F*ck was that?"

Mayor of Hiroshima

:eek:






:D :D

I believe I've listed the statistics from the Boston Globe in this thread and previous ones. Yes, more Palestinians have been killed. However, the vast majority of these (82%) are killed as a result of terrorist activity. That is justified, legitimate killing. They are military targets. More Israeli civilians have been killed than Palestinian civilians, more Israeli innocenst have been killed than Palestinian innocents. Stastistical facts.


Bollocks, actually.


I know I've explained this on previous threads too, and I'm sure you know it by now. International law works via treaty. Unless you can show me where Israel engaged in any treaty binding it to such an agreement it broke, then it isn't committing any criminal, or illegal, offense. Yes, many states and the UN will acknowledge that what soverign states do is against international law, in their opinion, but soverign states are not bound by international law unless they engage in the treaties that bind them. So, can you show me such a treaty?

Well, as you obviously didnt get the last time I posted it, certain elements apply whether you sign or not. Thats partivularily true of the Geneva convention. Now be a good lad and admit that you're wrong.



There isn't a soverign nation or a majority of lawyers that claim the ICJ has jurisidction over Israeli settlements, or that Israel engaged in the treaties that would bind them by such law.?

The settlements are covered by the above. When you amend your "it-agrees with-what-I-thought-so-that-must-be-how-it-is" knowledge, you'll see what I mean.




You, like most NS General posters, don't seem to grasp how international law works. The ICJ making a ruling does not become international law unless Israel is under the jurisdiction and bound by treaty. This is clearly stated in the ICJ charter, and the ICJ as well as the international community acknowledges that it did not have jurisdiction over Israel on these issues.
.?

The ICJ can't in certain instances no. Were the US not backing Israel it would be rather a different story.

Well, as you obviously didnt get the last time I posted it, certain elements apply whether you sign or not. Thats partivularily true of the Geneva convention. Now be a good lad and admit that you're wrong.

The Geneva Conventions have no clauses that apply to non-member states. In fact, certain states excluded themselves from the Geneva Convention for the sole purpose of not adhering to the treaties. Remember, the Geneva Conventions are nothing but treaties.

Something similiar to this was covered in a previous thread on war crimes. This is from wikipedia:

"On July 1, 2002 the International Criminal Court, a treaty based court located in The Hague, came into being for the prosecution of war crimes committed on or after that date. However, several nations, most notably the United States, China, and Israel, have criticized the court, refused to participate in it or permit the court to have jurisdiction over their citizens. Note however that a citizen of one of the 'objector nations' could still find himself before the Court if he was to travel to a country which is a signatory to the treaty, regardless of the fact that their country of origin is not a signatory."

The Geneva Conventons, the ICC, ICJ, UN Security Council, etc. are all treaty based.

The settlements are covered by the above. When you amend your "it-agrees with-what-I-thought-so-that-must-be-how-it-is" knowledge, you'll see what I mean.

Oh? I recall from a former thread that you couldn't point out where Israel engaged in any treaties in the Geneva Conventions that would oblige it to adhere.

The ICJ can't in certain instances no. Were the US not backing Israel it would be rather a different story.

You're confusing the ICJ with the UN Security Council. The US doesn't have a veto over the ICJ or influence its actions in any way. The ICJ simply has no authority except by states that give it explict jurisdiction, something Israel hasn't done.

But, I'm sure you'll try to dispute this (like the statistics you simply cried 'bollocks!' at). So, if you can, go ahead and show me when the US has influenced the ICJ in any respect regarding Israel.

It's too bad...but war brings civilion deaths. Let's take Hiroshima, or Nagaski for instance.
Yeah, because you know terrorists love spending time at the beach. Playing beach volleyball, and horseshoes. They also like to dress up like women and children.

The Geneva Conventions have no clauses that apply to non-member states. In fact, certain states excluded themselves from the Geneva Convention for the sole purpose of not adhering to the treaties. Remember, the Geneva Conventions are nothing but treaties.

Something similiar to this was covered in a previous thread on war crimes. This is from wikipedia:

"On July 1, 2002 the International Criminal Court, a treaty based court located in The Hague, came into being for the prosecution of war crimes committed on or after that date. However, several nations, most notably the United States, China, and Israel, have criticized the court, refused to participate in it or permit the court to have jurisdiction over their citizens. Note however that a citizen of one of the 'objector nations' could still find himself before the Court if he was to travel to a country which is a signatory to the treaty, regardless of the fact that their country of origin is not a signatory."

The Geneva Conventons, the ICC, ICJ, UN Security Council, etc. are all treaty based.



Oh? I recall from a former thread that you couldn't point out where Israel engaged in any treaties in the Geneva Conventions that would oblige it to adhere.



You're confusing the ICJ with the UN Security Council. The US doesn't have a veto over the ICJ or influence its actions in any way. The ICJ simply has no authority except by states that give it explict jurisdiction, something Israel hasn't done.

But, I'm sure you'll try to dispute this (like the statistics you simply cried 'bollocks!' at). So, if you can, go ahead and show me when the US has influenced the ICJ in any respect regarding Israel.

"The following are rules applicable in all conflicts, regardless of whether the countries in question are signatories of the Geneva Conventions – and regardless of whether the warring party in question is recognized as an independent state.
Warring parties must obey the rules spelled out in the common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which requires that prisoners of war and wounded combatants be protected from murder; discrimination based on race, religion, sex, and similar criteria; mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; humiliating and degrading treatment; and sentencing or execution without a fair trial.

In addition, the following are forbidden towards any persons in an area of armed conflict:

"Torture, mutilation, rape, slavery and arbitrary killing
Genocide
Crimes against humanity – which include forced disapparance and deprivation of humanitarian aid
War crimes – which include apartheid, biological experiments, hostage tacking, attacks on cultural objects, and depriving people of the right to a fair trial.

For a more complete explanation of any of the above terms, please see the alphabetical reference, which follows this introductory material. "
http://www.genevaconventions.org/
Article 49
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

But you'll refuse to accept that doubtless as well. Which goes on the list with refusing to retract the false specific allegation, and not having the decency to admit you were wrong over the submission of material to the army for approval. And those are just the ones I remember.

Israel said it had believed the beach was empty.
Then why the fuck were they shelling a beach? Were they trying to thin out the fucking crab population?

Yeah, because you know terrorists love spending time at the beach. Playing beach volleyball, and horseshoes. They also like to dress up like women and children.

Actually dressing up like women and children is a common modus operandi of terrorists. Women more than children, for various reasons. Its easier to disguise your appearance, or a large weapon, under a chador or burka. Its also easier to get past security checkpoints, as men don't search women.

Terrorists dressing up as females is more common in Iraq by insurgents now than by Palestinians, as Israel has pretty much become accustomed to this and adapted, such as increasingly using women along with men to guard checkpoints and search those passing through.

Actually dressing up like women and children is a common modus operandi of terrorists. Women more than children, for various reasons. Its easier to disguise your appearance, or a large weapon, under a chador or burka. Its also easier to get past security checkpoints, as men don't search women.

Terrorists dressing up as females is more common in Iraq by insurgents now than by Palestinians, as Israel has pretty much become accustomed to this and adapted, such as increasingly using women along with men to guard checkpoints and search those passing through.
You obviously missed the whole overtone to the post.

7 palestineans including 3 children and 2 women from one family spending the day at the beach in Gaza were bombed by israeli battleships.

Were those children and women terrorists threatening the peace of israel?
:mad: :headbang:

1. The Navy have been ruled out by the investigation

2. The Air Force have been ruled out by the investigation

3. The Army are still being investigated

4. The investigation has confirmed nothing, so your statement is flawed

5. Further possibilities include insobordination by the Isralie army or the detination of a previously unexploded shell by children by accident. Nothing has yet been confirmed

The following are rules applicable in all conflicts, regardless of whether the countries in question are signatories of the Geneva Conventions – and regardless of whether the warring party in question is recognized as an independent state.
Warring parties must obey the rules spelled out in the common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which requires that prisoners of war and wounded combatants be protected from murder; discrimination based on race, religion, sex, and similar criteria; mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; humiliating and degrading treatment; and sentencing or execution without a fair trial.

You realize this isn't part of the text of any Geneva Convention treaty, right?

You just copied this off of a website for Geneva Convention references, used explictly to inform journalists, that goes by genevaconventions.org. It doesn't even have any official relation to the Geneva Conventions.

Website you copied from (http://www.genevaconventions.org/)

And that isn't all. You've done your selective cut and pasting again, attempting to distort the context and meaning of what it states. I'll go ahead and cut and paste the whole thing for you, to keep it in context:

Customary Laws

The following are rules applicable in all conflicts, regardless of whether the countries in question are signatories of the Geneva Conventions – and regardless of whether the warring party in question is recognized as an independent state.
Warring parties must obey the rules spelled out in the common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which requires that prisoners of war and wounded combatants be protected from murder; discrimination based on race, religion, sex, and similar criteria; mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; humiliating and degrading treatment; and sentencing or execution without a fair trial.

In addition, the following are forbidden towards any persons in an area of armed conflict:

* Torture, mutilation, rape, slavery and arbitrary killing
* Genocide
* Crimes against humanity – which include forced disapparance and deprivation of humanitarian aid
* War crimes – which include apartheid, biological experiments, hostage tacking, attacks on cultural objects, and depriving people of the right to a fair trial.


The above are the only things that this website claims are applicable to all bodies, "regardless of egardless of whether the countries in question are signatories of the Geneva Conventions – and regardless of whether the warring party in question is recognized as an independent state." Remember, the Geneva Conventions themselves do not claim such things in any of their treaties.

Now, lets move on from the fact that this isn't the text of the Geneva Convention treaties, but the comments of the website you took this from.

The website you copied this off of also does not attempt to link Article 49 with the above in any way whatsoever. It explictly states that Article 3 is the only applicable one to all bodies. Yet, you've attempted to link Article 49 along with it. In fact, Article 49 (below) isn't even on the same page of the website.

Your attempt to link these two unrelated issues is academic dishonesty to the extreme. It is tantamount to taking two sentences, cutting them both in half, and then pasting them back together to form something entirelly different. Here is an example of what you've done:

Sentence 1. The man killed the goat.
Sentence 2. The fire killed the woman.

What you've done: The man killed the woman.

Article 49
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

So, we know that Israel hasn't engaged in Article 49. We also know that the Geneva Conventions do not claim that Article 49 is applicable to non-member states anywhere. But, lets examine just what it would mean if they were;

Can you show me when Israel deported or transfered parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies? Settlements don't fit this criteria, and that is acknowledged by the Israeli Supreme Court. They don't fit the criteria because it was the willing movement of Israelis to settle in the Occupied Territories, not a transfer or deportation as the law prohibits.

But you'll refuse to accept that doubtless as well. Which goes on the list with refusing to retract the false specific allegation, and not having the decency to admit you were wrong over the submission of material to the army for approval. And those are just the ones I remember.

Now, why would I accept something you cut and pasted off a website claiming to be a Geneva Convention source, when it isn't a part of any one of the Geneva Conventions? Or, why would I accept what you've posted, when you attempted to doctor and alter what the website claimed to begin with?

Perhaps you can go back to showing me where the Geneva Conventions claim to be applicable to non-member states, or where Israel engaged in any treaties regarding Article 49.

And crying "retract!" "apology!" "admit you were wrong!" each post you make is starting to sound like a desperate cry for validation or attention. Perhaps you can work on backing your claims with facts, instead of the type of dishonesty that you've demonstrated in your last post. In any case, cutting and pasting things from journalism websites and pretending they are part of the Geneva Conventions isn't making your anti-Israel stance look any better.

Um... I'm not sure if you're thinking about Israel or Palestine when you're talking about "non-member states"... But if you are talking about Israel, didn't they ratify the Geneva Conventions in 1951?

Um... I'm not sure if you're thinking about Israel or Palestine when you're talking about "non-member states"... But if you are talking about Israel, didn't they ratify the Geneva Conventions in 1951?

No, I imagine I was vague. Israel is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions. However, Israel does not recgonize that it has violated, or is bound by, Article 49. And it is within its full legal right to do so.

The ADL describes why:

Israeli Settlements (http://www.adl.org/israel/advocacy/how_to_respond/settlements.asp?xflag=1)

Settlements, Jewish communities that were established in the West Bank and Gaza Strip after the territories were gained in the 1967 War, do not violate international law.

Israel’s administration of the territory in 1967 replaced Jordan’s control of the West Bank and Egypt’s of the Gaza Strip. Egypt and Jordan gained control of these areas during the 1948 War with the newly - established Israel, which according to the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan, were to be part of the independent Arab state to be established alongside an independent Jewish state (a plan rejected by Arab nations and Palestinian leadership). Neither Jordan nor Egypt had legal sovereignty over these areas. Israel maintains that these areas can thus not be considered “occupied territories” under international law, since Israel did not “occupy” them from another sovereign nation, but are “disputed territories” over which there are competing claims, and whose future must be determined through negotiations. Since 1967, Israeli governments have maintained a willingness to withdraw from areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in a peace agreement with the Arabs.

Critics of Israel frequently cite Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the forcible transfer of segments of a population of a state to the territory of another state which it has occupied through the use of armed force, as proof of the illegality of settlements. However, Israel maintains that the Geneva Convention, drafted after World War II, was intended to protect local populations from displacement, such as the forced population transfers experienced before and during the war in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary. The situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is clearly different. Israel has not forcibly transferred Israelis to these areas. Rather, Israeli settlers voluntarily reside in areas where Jews have historically dwelled.

7 palestineans including 3 children and 2 women from one family spending the day at the beach in Gaza were bombed by israeli battleships.

Were those children and women terrorists threatening the peace of israel?
:mad: :headbang:


When did Israel get battleships ?

a gunboat is a battleship!


as much as a submarine is an airplane .

Is everyone on this thread aware that we now know that the explosion in Gaza was caused by Palestinian terrorists, not by Israeli shelling?

This fact was discovered by the IDF and admitted by the Palestinian security forcecs, who retracted their original statement that it was a result of IDF shelling.

Now, is everyone who condemned Israel ready to recant regarding this issue and condemn the Palestinains, or do we have another anti-Israeli double standard?

Is everyone on this thread aware that we now know that the explosion in Gaza was caused by Palestinian terrorists, not by Israeli shelling?

This fact was discovered by the IDF and admitted by the Palestinian security forcecs, who retracted their original statement that it was a result of IDF shelling.

Now, is everyone who condemned Israel ready to recant regarding this issue and condemn the Palestinains, or do we have another anti-Israeli double standard?

The 'story' you linked to can't be found in the AP Press website or archives. Neither can Google find any reference to it.

Is everyone on this thread aware that we now know that the explosion in Gaza was caused by Palestinian terrorists, not by Israeli shelling?

This fact was discovered by the IDF and admitted by the Palestinian security forcecs, who retracted their original statement that it was a result of IDF shelling.

Now, is everyone who condemned Israel ready to recant regarding this issue and condemn the Palestinains, or do we have another anti-Israeli double standard?
A linky would be nice...

The 'story' you linked to can't be found in the AP Press website or archives. Neither can Google find any reference to it.

Why would it need to be? AP is a news feed service, not all of the stories farmed out by AP are found in their archives or on their website, just like not all of the stories farmed out by Reuters (another news feed service) is found on their websites.

However, you have it right there in the Jerusalem Post, with a link to the AP editor. You seem to be attempting to divert the attention away from the fact that both the Palestinian security forces and the IDF have discovered it was the result of Palestinian terror, not IDF shelling.

Also keep in mind that Israel gets Israeli news first. Give it a few hours and I'm sure you'll get it on the BBC too.

A linky would be nice...

My mistake, I started a new thread about it. Here is the article & link:

Misfiring of Palestinian rocket causes Gaza blast (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1149572653727)

A Palestinian rocket that went off prematurely caused an explosion Saturday in the northern Gaza Strip, Palestinian security officials said.

Initially, the officials said the explosion was caused by an Israeli air strike, but later recanted their statement. The army said it had not carried out a missile strike in Gaza.

My mistake, I started a new thread about it. Here is the article & link:

Misfiring of Palestinian rocket causes Gaza blast (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1149572653727)

Unless i'm getting the wrong end of the stick here, the Jerusalem Post is talking about an attack on Saturday, but the BBC claims that the attack that 'provoked' Hamas was on friday.

Thousands of people have attended the funeral of seven members of a Palestinian family killed in an explosion on a Gaza beach on Friday.

Unless i'm getting the wrong end of the stick here, the Jerusalem Post is talking about an attack on Saturday, but the BBC claims that the attack that 'provoked' Hamas was on friday.
Indeed. Seems to be two seperate incidents.

Unless i'm getting the wrong end of the stick here, the Jerusalem Post is talking about an attack on Saturday, but the BBC claims that the attack that 'provoked' Hamas was on friday.

This is the same attack. There was actually a previous Jerusalem Post article on it as well that was leading up to it:

IDF: Palestinians may have caused blast (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1149572649819&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

"The IDF concluded on Saturday that the explosion on a Gaza beach on the previous day was caused either by an accidental IDF shelling or by an internal Palestinian incident. Commander of Gaza Division Brig.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi said that there was mounting evidence supporting the latter option."

So, for those of us following it, it isn't that shocking to hear a report that it was the result of Palestinian terror. This type of thing occurs frequently in Israel - Palestinians get injured, even if it is their fault, and then blame it on Israel.

So, for those of us following it, it isn't that shocking to hear a report that it was the result of Palestinian terror. This type of thing occurs frequently in Israel - Palestinians get injured, even if it is their fault, and then blame it on Israel.
You're reaching a conclusion awful quickly. One source is not much to go on. I'm inclined to wait for a corroborating account before accepting this new story. And that's not because I "hate Israel" - I don't.

This is the same attack. There was actually a previous Jerusalem Post article on it as well that was leading up to it:

IDF: Palestinians may have caused blast (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1149572649819&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

"The IDF concluded on Saturday that the explosion on a Gaza beach on the previous day was caused either by an accidental IDF shelling or by an internal Palestinian incident. Commander of Gaza Division Brig.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi said that there was mounting evidence supporting the latter option."

So, for those of us following it, it isn't that shocking to hear a report that it was the result of Palestinian terror. This type of thing occurs frequently in Israel - Palestinians get injured, even if it is their fault, and then blame it on Israel.

Well, unless Hamas have the TARDIS as well as a few rockets and AK-47s, that still doesn't explain how the same atatck happened on two days.

And before screaming OMFG Palestinians are teh sux0rz, if Israel wasn't occupying Palestine for 40 years, Hamas probably wouldn't exist. So there. The Terrorists and Israel both have to accept responsibility for this mess.

we all know this "New israeli massacre was based on more than one source and was fact checked before it was posted .:D

funny how no one mentioned this new story besides the jerusalem post which has as much credibility regarding the israeli/palestinean conflict as much as FOX regarding US politics.

Kwanistan.. You continually reference the US in regards to ignoring the plight of Palestine. Time to give you a brief history esson. Oh yes, btw I am Irish and no great supporter of the US but here are the facts:

Following the allies discovery of German concentration camps there was widespread feelings of guilt, especially in the US and UK as both countries had been informed of these camps yet made no attempts to halt them. Thus with the cessation of hostilities both countries experienced war guilt and in an attemp to alleviate this planned for a jewish state; Israel. Its location, agreed upon by the UN, was to be its current location. This was for a number of reasons! 1. To allow for a fresh start away from Europe for those affected by the holocaust. 2. To establish a bulwark state against Russias growing influence, which had long seeked the control of the former Turkish empire, a cause of ww1 ;)
A state was established that was to allow for peacefull coexistance. However!! The founders of israel jumped the gun on the UN and created a pro jewish settlement with no regard for the paletinian populace.
So Israel is just as bad as Palestine. Why? In the early days jewish terrorists bombed UK and US troops and civilians in an effort to gain independance.

The continued war guilt is to be seen today in the manner of the UK and US continuing support, materialistically and politically of Israel.
So ysee.. all your arguments amount to nothing. The situation is too terse and murky to declare one side a bad or good side, irrespective of the means used. Both sides need to sit at a table and work it out, as it is obvious armed struggle has amounted to nothing in this regard.

funny how no one mentioned this new story besides the jerusalem post which has as much credibility regarding the israeli/palestinean conflict as much as FOX regarding US politics.

The Jerusalem Post is the leading newspaper in Israel, and has a distinctly liberal and pro-Palestinian stance. Wikipedia (Jerusalem Post):

"The Jerusalem Post's espouses economic positions close to those of neo-liberalism: tight fiscal control on public spending, curbing of welfare, cutting taxes, and anti union monopoly legislation among various other subjects pertaining to reforming Israeli society. The paper also competes with the left of center Haaretz newspaper which began publishing an English language edition in the 1990s."

But remember, its just a news feed. Jerusalem Post got it from Associated Press. I guess you don't think that AP has much credibility either though, for some reason. In any case, as I wrote, I'm sure you'll see it elsewhere as soon as the newsfeed gets developed into a full editorial.

It's too bad...but war brings civilion deaths. Let's take Hiroshima, or Nagaski for instance.

But they were intended to end the conflict, all Israel do is keep escalating it. how hard is it to not invade another country and murder civilians for no reason?

The continued war guilt is to be seen today in the manner of the UK and US continuing support, materialistically and politically of Israel.
So ysee.. all your arguments amount to nothing. The situation is too terse and murky to declare one side a bad or good side, irrespective of the means used. Both sides need to sit at a table and work it out, as it is obvious armed struggle has amounted to nothing in this regard.

i don't need to go back to WW2 to see that the US is biased towards Israel i just have to see the US vetoes on every single UN resolution condemning Israel in the last 30 years even the Qana massacre in Lebanon where 100 women and children were killed when Israel bombed a UN base.

i don't need to go back to WW2 to see that the US is biased towards Israel i just have to see the US vetoes on every single UN resolution condemning Israel in the last 30 years even the Qana massacre in Lebanon where 100 women and children were killed when Israel bombed a UN base.

The purpose was to show you their side. Why so quick to condemn the US and Israel but not Palestine? Severe bias ;)

The purpose was to show you their side. Why so quick to condemn the US and Israel but not Palestine? Severe bias ;)

who said i don't condemn palestinean terror targetting innocent israeli civilians.
Don't worry i truely believe both sides are as bad it just enrages me when some portray israel as a democracy defending itself!

Then why the fuck were they shelling a beach? Were they trying to thin out the fucking crab population?


Do you realise that anti-semitism is rife amongst crustaceans? Nobody wants to face up to the fact, but its true nevertheless. Thus eating Lobster is a betrayal of all that Judaism stands for, according to people who are very quick to tell you these things.


No, I imagine I was vague. Israel is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions. However, Israel does not recgonize that it has violated, or is bound by, Article 49. And it is within its full legal right to do so.?

Yeah. "vague".

Everybody else accussed of breaking it has said "Its a fair cop,Guv but Arabs are to blame" I suppose.

They can think want they want and get away with it too, but if the US stops its unilateral support before a signed agreement itll be sanctions quicker than you can falsely accuse of anti-semitism.


However, Israel maintains that the Geneva Convention, drafted after World War II, was intended to protect local populations from displacement, such as the forced population transfers experienced before and during the war in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary.

Well, that parts true. So I presume the bit they missed "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." - is as well. (my bold)


Can you show me when Israel deported or transfered parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies? Settlements don't fit this criteria, and that is acknowledged by the Israeli Supreme Court.

Well, if I was near a settlement, I'd point. And I think you can guess what the world legal opinion is re what the Israeli supreme court has to say on the matter too.

But they were intended to end the conflict, all Israel do is keep escalating it. how hard is it to not invade another country and murder civilians for no reason?


' ello mate....you seem to have neglected to notice that the Israeli's were returning fire at rocket batteries...AFTER ..being fired on.

So who was escallating what again ????