 sj |
||
|
||
BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 04 Jun 10 - 06:28 AM ""This is all part of a carefully-written scam. An attempt to say that European Jews do not belong in the Jewish State when they do."" There's that blatant misrepresentation of fact again. The state is ISRAEL. It's citizens are ISRAELIS. Some Israelis are of the Jewish faith, and some are not. There is no such country as "The Jewish State". IT DOES NOT EXIST Can we now continue to discuss the act of PIRACY committed by the ISRAELI GOVERNMENT? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Arnie Date: 04 Jun 10 - 07:06 AM It will be interesting to see if any lessons have been learned when the aid vessel mv Rachel Corrie reaches Gazan waters on Saturday. The Israelis have vowed to intercept it, but have promised that they will act politely. That probably means using rubber bullets instead of live ammunition! My mother is of Jewish descent and has told me that I'm entitled to reside in Israel - that's an offer I definitely will not be taking up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Emma B Date: 04 Jun 10 - 07:15 AM I have no wish to divert this thread into detailed 'academic' byways or disputes again but just a brief comment about 'The Jewish state' Der Judenstaat or The Jewish State is a book written by Theodor Herzl, later hailed as the founder of the Zionist movement, published in 1896 in Leipzig and Vienna in which he describes in detail his vision of a Jewish state. It is interesting that Herzl opposed the efforts already made by Zionist groups to settle Jews in Ottoman-controlled Palestine, arguing that "important experiments in colonization have been made, though on the mistaken principle of a gradual infiltration of Jews. An infiltration is bound to end badly. It continues till the inevitable moment when the native population feels itself threatened," Quoted from The Jewish State, translated by Sylvie d'Avigdor, Nutt, London, 1896, and reprinted by Dover, 1988) His last literary work Altneuland envisioned a Jewish state which combined both a modern Jewish culture with the best of the European heritage Herzl did not envision the Jewish inhabitants of the state being religious, but there would be much respect for religion in the public sphere. He did not foresee any conflict between Jews and Arabs as all non-Jews have equal rights, and an attempt by a fanatical rabbi to disenfranchise the non-Jewish citizens of their rights fails in the election which is the center of the main political plot of the novel He directed his wrath against the nationalist party which wished to make the Jews a privileged class in Palestine. Herzl regarded that as a betrayal of Zion, for Zion was identical to him with humanitarianism and tolerance He also assumed that many languages would be spoken, but Hebrew would not be the main tongue. Proponents of a Jewish cultural rebirth, such as Ahad Ha'am were critical of Altneuland. The terms a 'Jewish State' and the 'State of Israel' are frequently used interchangeably including in the November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly resolution outlining the 'Future Constitution and Government of Palestine' "Hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in the land of Israel to be known as the State of Israel. …Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the "Ingathering of the Exiles" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Emma B Date: 04 Jun 10 - 07:29 AM The spirit of Herzl lives on in modern Israel |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: bobad Date: 04 Jun 10 - 07:44 AM Rationalizing homicidal aggression By John Robson, The Ottawa CitizenJune 4, 2010 One major lesson of history is that humans are frequently vile chumps. Unfortunately, because we are the audience as well as the topic, the lesson often fails to sink in. I strongly suspect the same problem lies behind our frequent inability, or unwillingness, to draw obvious historical analogies. Presumably we all know exactly what to do the next time Hitler demands part of Czechoslovakia. But we nevertheless stare in bafflement, or worse, at North Korea or Hamas. Why? Consider this luminous passage about appeasement I just encountered while rereading Peter Calvocoressi and Guy Wint's 1972 book Total War for a seminar I'm teaching on America at war. "Hitler's ravings," the authors say, "were passed over and he was regarded as a man who would make bargains and stick to them because it was difficult to see what to do if he was really a totally different kind of person." Does this observation not shine a brilliant light on what's happening today, starting with Western regimes begging the Chinese government to help them do something about North Korea sinking a South Korean warship? I would not say Western governments are completely unwilling to understand the North Korean regime. It is so evidently insane you just look stupid denying it. On the other hand, our would-be statesmen consistently insist that the correct response to any North Korean behaviour, comparatively tame or psychotically violent, is restraint by us. Is it not clear that the North Korean regime does not react well to restraint? It may be objected with some justice that Pyongyang doesn't react well to anything, but, if it did, it wouldn't be to empty words or carefully harmless sanctions. That tyrannically insane government couldn't care less if the country's entire population starved to death, and they laugh at our reproaches. So what impact are mild sanctions or hollow condemnations meant to have? In short, Western policy toward North Korea is in substance (or lack thereof) driven by assumptions with nothing to recommend them except the difficulty of seeing what to do if they are unfounded. When it comes to the People's Republic of China, the problem is considerably more acute because China is both stronger and less clearly insane (though Hitler was pretty obviously demented and people didn't let it affect their judgment that he was reasonable). But China is unlikely to be a useful partner in reining in North Korea because the Chinese are its strongest backer. And they are its strongest backer because.... Oh dear. How very many unpleasant ways there are of finishing that sentence and how few pleasant ones. So we assume that China's rulers have limited, reasonable geopolitical ambitions and a fundamentally peaceful diplomatic orientation not because anything they ever do supports that assumption, but because it is difficult to see what to do if they are really totally different kinds of people. My ruminations on this disquieting subject earlier this week were rudely interrupted by the latest news that Israeli efforts to inspect a convoy headed for Gaza resulted in pacifists attacking IDF members with clubs, knives and guns and getting shot. Now it is perfectly obvious that Israel is not going to permit uninspected cargoes to enter Gaza and it is obvious why: Gaza is ruled by Hamas, which is sworn not only to destroy Israel, but also to exterminate Jews. (See, again, Article 7 of the Hamas Charter, where rocks and trees erupt in anti-Semitic fury.) No one but Israel would ever be asked to let such an entity import uninspected cargoes for murderous purposes; not only would Canada not permit it under similar circumstances, but also we would not ask Syria to stand for it, or North Korea. Admit it. If a convoy of activists insisted on bringing uninspected cargoes into North Korea, attacked customs officials who tried to inspect them and got killed, there would be no outcry. We'd soberly note that nations have a right to protect their borders, urge restraint, and perhaps make a grovelling submission to the Chinese government to help us persuade North Korea to shoot the next bunch with smaller calibre weapons. So what's the deal with Hamas? Why does the press insist on running headlines like "After deadly raid, Israel stands alone" and "Israel's alliances hit the hardest" and "Bloody Israeli raid on flotilla sparks crisis"? I'll tell you. It's because Western diplomats, politicians and journalists pass over Hamas's ravings and members of the convoy chanting about Muhammad's army coming to kill Jews and insist on regarding Hamas as an organization that will make bargains and stick to them because it is very difficult to see what to do otherwise. So what do we learn from history? So little that, if Hitler did demand the Sudetenland again, we'd probably give it to him. John Robson's column appears weekly. © Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Lox Date: 04 Jun 10 - 07:55 AM "My ruminations on this disquieting subject earlier this week were rudely interrupted by the latest news that Israeli efforts to inspect a convoy headed for Gaza resulted in pacifists attacking IDF members with clubs, knives and guns and getting shot." Except that there is no evidence that there were any knives or guns. "Admit it. If a convoy of activists insisted on bringing uninspected cargoes into North Korea, attacked customs officials who tried to inspect them and got killed, there would be no outcry." The activists and ships were inspected by customs officials in Turkey. If there had been any attempt to attack Turkish or Israeli customs officials the flotilla would have loast all credibility. So I for one will not agree with this bullshit assertion. Lets see what US ambassador Edward Peck has to say on the subject ... Peck |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Mr Happy Date: 04 Jun 10 - 07:59 AM Does everyone understand the concept of 'going off at a tangent', that is, prevaricating on all sorts of associated issues leading away from the main topic [aka thread drift]? ******** For me [& I imagine lots others], the ultimate here & now situation is this: Thousands of innocent civilians in the Gaza Strip are being starved of food, medical supplies & other items necessary to maintain a reasonable quality of life. Attempts by aid orgs to alleviate the situation are being thwarted, confounded by the militaristic Israeli Empire builders [& I don't say that in any flippant or cynical way] who're backed by US & therefore can continue like this with the protection of Uncle Surely, we should be discussing & making suggestions as to how the situation can be addessed. That's another 2pennyworth, I'll get me poncho!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Lox Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:06 AM Mr Happy, you are right. Unfortunately, unless red herrings are caught and shown to be the irrelevant distractions that they are, they can always be used to bolster preconceptions and prejudices. This can take time, but it is a chore that does have to be done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Emma B Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:25 AM re Rationalizing homicidal aggression By John Robson, The Ottawa CitizenJune 4, 2010 This is John Robson, described as a 'conservative's conservative' writing for the Ottawa Citizen - part of the CanWest Global empire whose unconditional support for the Israeli governments actions and censorship of any dissenting journalistic view has been discussed elsewhere in this thread. 'nuff said! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: number 6 Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:31 AM If the state of Israel was handed over to the Palestinians ... what would the outcome and fate be for the current Jewish inhabitants? Would this Palestinian state be a democracy? Curious as what everyone would answer to these questions? biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: freda underhill Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:39 AM CarolC, it was an Australian photographer, Kate Geraghty, who hid The photos they didn't want seen in her underwear: "Four assault boats full of soldiers were chasing us and I knew they would board. I knew I just had to shoot as much as I could. With satellite communication jammed there was no way to transmit the images so I used gaffer tape to hide the micro SD cards on my body and in my clothes. Most of the Israeli boats sped away but a Zodiac stopped beside our boat and the commandos boarded. I was knocked to the ground, perhaps by a stun gun. I got up and a soldier lunged towards me and snatched my camera. Despite numerous searches, including a strip search, I saved three cards. The Israelis found three in my clothing, but I hung on to the others - two on my body and one in some personal gear" freda |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Emma B Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:51 AM Bill - are you referring to a 'one state solution' for Palentinians and Jews? "Proponents of a binational solution to the conflict advocate a single state in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with citizenship and equal rights in the combined entity for all inhabitants of all three territories, without regard to ethnicity or religion." Wiki Israeli opponents argue that one state would erode the notion of Israel as a Jewish state. The main obstacle is the fact that demographic trends show the likelihood of a near-term majority Arab population west of the Jordan River (including the land within the internationally recognized borders of the state of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza). Polls have shown that the probability that Palestinians would constitute an electoral majority in a binational state is seen by many Israeli Jews as a threat to the very premise of Israel, which is imagined as a state for the Jews One-state solution a pipedream Thought provoking, balanced article in the Jewish press by Ray Hanania (an Arab-American journalist also known for his stand-up comedy) who describes himself as a 'moderate Palestinian' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Mr Happy Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:52 AM Religion's not one've my religions, therefore I wait with baited breath to see world reaction to Rachel Corrie's progress, while strongly hoping, mentalising good wishes & bon voyage to the brave folks manning her [call it secular prayer?] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: number 6 Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:00 AM Emma .... what I'm asking here is for posters to this thread what they would see as the outcome 'if' ... please no links, just your answers or ... what you feel the solution would be to all of this, and what you foresee of the solution's outcome .. again please no ever ending links. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: bobad Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:04 AM "This is John Robson, described as a 'conservative's conservative' writing for the Ottawa Citizen - part of the CanWest Global empire whose unconditional support for the Israeli governments actions and censorship of any dissenting journalistic view has been discussed elsewhere in this thread. 'nuff said!" If you can't refute the content attack the source - weak and pathetic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: freda underhill Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:11 AM Haaretz, one of the two main papers in Israel, has articles with a lot of soul searching about Israel government knee-jerk responses in justifying the atrocities. I too did not speak out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: freda underhill Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:19 AM This is a very good article about the legalities of what happened by Associate Professor Ben Saul of the Sydney Centre for International Law at The University of Sydney. Dr Saul teaches the law of armed conflict and has been involved in such cases in The Hague, the Israeli Supreme Court, and in the Balibo coronial inquest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Emma B Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:24 AM Just attempting to clarify No 6 what you actually meant by the rather disingenuous question "If the state of Israel was handed over to the Palestinians?" If you want my personal point of view then, it is somewhat in line with the article I linked - which btw, I hoped would open up the discussion a little beyond simplistic and completely unrealistic (not to mention somewhat provocative sounding) 'what if' scenarios! That is to say that, some time ago, I would have been on the side of a binational solution to the apparently intractable but accept that this is no longer a realitic proposal and would like to know more about the possibilitiy of a two state solution although the arguments for this from Blair, Bush, Condoleezza Rice etc don't particularly impress me However, I will retain the right to reply as I please and not how you wish to 'dictate' Bill, without apology, and post the argument for by Noam Chomsky, PhD, Professor of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in a Mar. 30, 2004 ZNet interview which does convince me to this 'solution' at the present time. "In the short term, the only feasible and minimally decent solution is along the lines of the international consensus that the US has unilaterally blocked for the last 30 years: a two-state settlement on the international border (green line), with 'minor and mutual adjustments,' in the terms of official US policy, though not actual policy after 1971... Perhaps in the longer term, as hostility and fear subside and relations are more firmly developed along non-national lines, there will be a possibility of moving towards a federal version of binationalism, then perhaps on to closer integration, perhaps even to a democratic secular state -- though it is far from obvious that that is the optimal arrangement for complex societies, there or elsewhere." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Emma B Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:35 AM "If you can't refute the content attack the source - weak and pathetic." I apply the same principle to being informed by the UK paper, The Daily Mail, that scores of Polish immigrants at various locations are trapping and BBQ'ing swans and that Christmas decorations have been banned so as not to offend non christians Sorry for the 'aside' folks |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: bobad Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:10 AM Well Emma, here's another editorial from the same newspaper which, according to your criteria, is dismissible due to lack of cedibility. They Shouldn't Have Been There Israel's soldiers may have acted in self-defence, but boarding a flotilla of aid ships on the high seas violated international law By Michael Byers, Citizen Special June 3, 2010 Comments (3) Israel probably regrets its decision to interdict a flotilla of six ships from NATO countries. But instead of apologizing unconditionally, it argues that its soldiers were justified in using lethal force to defend themselves after they had boarded the Turkish-registered Mavi Marmara. By focusing on this narrow issue, Israel is distracting attention away from the necessary, preliminary question of whether the soldiers had any right to be there in the first place, the answer to which turns on two different strands of international law. Is the blockade legal? The interdiction was intended to enforce the three-year long blockade of Gaza, a policy of questionable legality under international humanitarian law -- the so-called jus in bello governing the conduct of armed conflict. The issue here is not whether blockades in general are legal, but whether this particular blockade -- which extends to most civilian goods and thus has serious affects on non-belligerents --goes too far. Last year, the UN Human Rights Council asked Justice Richard Goldstone, the former chief prosecutor of the UN International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, to investigate the matter. Goldstone found that the blockade was a form of collective punishment directed against the population of Gaza, and thus a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention which Israel ratified in 1951. Collective punishment is also prohibited under customary international law which applies even if, as Israel argues, it is no longer an occupying power in Gaza and therefore not constrained by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Last November, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued his own report, which also focused on the indiscriminate nature of the blockade and called for it to be lifted. He wrote: "In particular, the Government of Israel should allow unimpeded access to Gaza for humanitarian aid and the non-humanitarian goods needed for the reconstruction of properties and infrastructure." If Goldstone and Ban are right, the Israeli blockade itself is illegal, and so, too, is any attempt to enforce it against ships carrying nothing more than humanitarian aid. Does self-defence stretch this far? Regardless of the legality of the blockade, Israel -- like all other countries -- has an inherent right of self-defence that is codified in Article 51 of the UN Charter. But the existence of this right does not mean that it extends to the use of force against foreign-flagged vessels in international waters when not carrying military supplies destined for a belligerent party. Self-defence is an exception to the UN Charter's prohibition on the use or threat of force against the "territorial integrity or political independence" of nation-states. As an exception, the right of self-defence must be narrowly construed -- especially when it runs up against other, fundamental rights. In international law, ships are treated as an extension of the territory of their state of registry. Beyond 12 nautical miles from shore, they exercise one of the oldest rights in international law, namely the freedom of navigation on the high seas. Self defence is also limited by requirements of necessity and proportionality. For this reason, we must ask whether the Israel Defence Forces acted in a necessary and proportionate way in boarding the vessels -- before they came into contact with the passengers. Israel has indicted ships in international waters before. In 2002, it seized the Karine A, a freighter in the Red Sea laden with 50 tons of Iranian-made weaponry. But Monday's incident was different, since nobody is suggesting that the ships were carrying munitions to Hamas. Israeli officials have claimed that the flotilla was opening the floodgates for further blockade-breaking. But although there is legitimate debate about whether the right of self-defence extends to pre-emption, the causal links here are tenuous at best. The threat was not "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation" -- which is the centuries-old test for necessity. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says the Israeli soldiers boarded the ship to check it for weapons, but you do not board for this purpose by surprise in the dark of night. The true motive for the interdiction was revealed by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman last Friday, when he said that the aid mission was a "violent provocation" that his country was ready to stop "at any cost." There were other options. Israel could have diplomatically engaged Turkey, arranged for a third party to verify the absence of munitions, and then peacefully escorted the flotilla to Gaza. Such an approach would have done more for its long-term security than this illegal action in support of an indiscriminate and therefore illegitimate blockade. Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia. In 2004, he was a visiting professor of law at the University of Tel Aviv. © Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/They+shouldn+have+been+there/3104730/story.html#ixzz0ptPetsJE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Mr Happy Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:29 AM Rachel Corrie news here: Meanwhile, the MV Rachel Corrie aid ship is heading towards the coast of Gaza, aiming to break the Israeli blockade. Activists on board told the BBC's Andrew North in Jerusalem by telephone that they were about 150 miles (240km) away and aimed to arrive just outside Israel's 20-mile (30km) exclusion zone off Gaza by Saturday morning. They said there were 20 people on board, including five Irish nationals, six Malaysians and nine crew members. One of the activists, former Nobel peace prize winner Mairead Corrigan Maguire, said their humanitarian aid shipment included cement and construction materials - items banned by Israel. Israel has made it clear it will not allow the ship - named after a US college student who was crushed to death by an Israeli army bulldozer as she protested about house demolitions in Gaza - to dock in the Palestinian territory. The Israeli government has instead offered to take the aid in by land, once it has checked there is nothing in the shipment that can be used for weapons. ******** Above excerpt from BBC here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10236884.stm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: mousethief Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:01 AM There is no such country as "The Jewish State". IT DOES NOT EXIST Netanyahu, 2 June 2010: "The Jewish state has a right to defend itself" "Jerusalem, Apr. 19 [2009] (ANI): The Palestinian Authority and the Hamas have rejected Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's precondition for peace talks that the Palestinians recognize his country as a Jewish state." Oh, whom to believe? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Stringsinger Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:01 AM It has become obvious that Israel is not about to engage in diplomatic relations with any country that opposes its policies. The old Ben-Gurion Zionism is dead. The new Zionism is totalitarian and obtuse. The US media is culpable for transmitting Israel's lies. The Shas Party of Jewish Fundamentalists are in control of Likkud. Israel is a theocracy. Rahm Emanuel's father was a member of the Irgun. Obama and Biden have been snowed by Israel. (Not to mention BP and Wall Street). Disinvest in Israel now! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: mousethief Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:14 AM Israel has been a theocracy for some time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: CarolC Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:24 AM number6, from all of the information I have, and I have a lot of information from people in Palestine, if Israel were to be handed to the Palestinians, all of the Jews who wanted to remain there would be able to and those who didn't want to remain there would be able to leave. It would be a democratic state. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: CarolC Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:36 AM bobad, it has been proven, both through testimonies, and through the videographic evidence, that the Israelis were not acting in self-defense, that they were the ones who attacked first, and that the ships' passengers were the ones who were acting in self-defense. So that's all the rebuttal that is needed to your editorials. By the way, those paint pellets that the Israeli government is pretending were all innocent, were full of paint and and glass fragments. The glass fragments caused serious soft tissue damage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: CarolC Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:56 AM I don't remember if this was posted previously in this thread or not, but just in case it hasn't been, here it is... Hamas renews offer to end fight if Israel withdraws |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: mousethief Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:07 PM But I wouldn't trust Hamas any farther than I trust Israel, which has a lot to do with human-powered ballistics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: CarolC Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:17 PM Hamas has adhered to all of the ceasefires that it has agreed to including unilateral ones, mousethief. There is no reason not to trust Hamas. And whatever else you might want to say about them, their primary concern is the welfare of their people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:34 PM A bit more about Emily Henochowicz, the Jewish girl from America who lost her eye on Tuesday when Israeli police fired a teargas cylinder direct at protesters in Jerusalem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Roberto Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:37 PM "There is no reason not to trust Hamas. Their primary concern is the welfare of their people" "If Israel were to be handed to the Palestinians, all of the Jews who wanted to remain there would be able to and those who didn't want to remain there would be able to leave. It would be a democratic state" CarolC, whether you don't know what you are talking about, or you have political reasons to pretend you're blind. It is not a matter of different ideas, but of basic perception of the situation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:37 PM "Hamas has adhered to all of the ceasefires that it has agreed to including unilateral ones, mousethief. There is no reason not to trust Hamas. And whatever else you might want to say about them, their primary concern is the welfare of their people. " Right. (sarcastic remark) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: mousethief Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:38 PM Hamas hasn't done a lot to stop rocket-launchers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Emma B Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:05 PM Oh well while it's ok to post newspaper articles in their entirity here is one from The Idependent** Wednesday, 2 June 2010 "Of course, they were asking for it" Mark Steel It's time the Israeli government's PR team made the most of its talents, and became available for hire. Then whenever a nutcase marched into a shopping mall in somewhere like Wisconsin and gunned down a selection of passers-by, they could be on hand to tell the world's press "The gunman regrets the loss of life but did all he could to avoid violence." Then various governments would issue statements saying "All we know is a man went berserk with an AK 47, and next to him there's a pile of corpses, so until we know the facts we can't pass judgement on what took place." To strengthen their case the Israelis have released a photo of the weapons they found on board, (which amount to some knives and tools and wooden sticks) that the naive might think you'd expect to find on any ship, but the more astute will recognise as exactly what you'd carry if you were planning to defeat the Israeli army. It's an armoury smaller than you'd find in the average toolshed in a garden in Cirencester, which goes to show the Israelis had better destroy Cirencester quickly as an essential act of self-defence. It's a shame they weren't more imaginative, as they could have said "We also discovered a deadly barometer, a ship's compass, which could not only be frisbeed at someone's head but even had markings to help the assailant know which direction he was throwing it, and a set of binoculars that could easily be converted into a ray-gun." That would be as logical as the statement from the Israeli PM's spokesman – "We made every possible effort to avoid this incident." Because the one tiny thing they forgot to do to avoid this incident was not send in armed militia from helicopters in the middle of the night and shoot people. I must be a natural at this sort of technique because I often go all day without climbing off a helicopter and shooting people, and I'm not even making every possible effort. Politicians and commentators worldwide repeat a version of this line. They're aware a nation has sent its militia to confront people carrying provisions for the desperate, in the process shooting several of them dead, and yet they angrily blame the dead ones. One typical headline yesterday read "Activists got what they wanted – confrontation." It's an attitude so deranged it deserves to be registered as a psychosis, something like "Reverse Slaughter Victim Confusion Syndrome". Israel and its supporters claim that Viva Palestina, made up of people who collect the donated food, cement and items for providing basic amenities such as toilets, and transport them to Gaza, wanted the violence all along. Because presumably they must have been thinking "Hezbollah couldn't beat them, but that's because unlike us they didn't have a ballcock and several boxes of plum tomatoes". One article told us the flotilla was full of "Thugs spoiling for a confrontation", and then accused them of being "Less about aid and more about PR. Indeed, on board was Swedish novelist Henning Mankell." So were they thugs or about PR? Did they have a thugs' section and a PR quarter, or did they all muck in, the novelist diverting the soldiers with his characterisation while the thugs attacked them with a lethal spirit level? But some defenders of Israel are so blind to what happens in front of them there's nothing at all they wouldn't jump to defend. Israel could blow up a cats home and within five minutes they'd be yelling "How do we know the cats weren't smuggling semtex in their fur for Hamas?" If this incident had been carried about by Iran, or anyone we were trying to portray as an enemy, so much condemnation would have been spewed out it would have created a vast cloud of outrage that airlines would be unable to fly through. But as it's Israel, most governments offer a few diplomatic words that blame no one, but accept the deaths are "regrettable". They might as well have picked any random word from the dictionary, so the news would tell us "William Hague described the deaths as 'hexagonal'", and a statement from the US senate said "It's all very confusing. In future let's hope they make every effort to avoid a similar incident." one of the youngest UK national daily newspapers. The daily edition was named National Newspaper of the Year at the 2004 British Press Awards. Originally a broadsheet newspaper, since 2003 it has been published in a tabloid format. The Independent is regarded as leaning to the left politically, although it has not affiliated itself to any political party and a range of views can be found on its editorial and comment pages. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: CarolC Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:05 PM http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gowX__3_lydhbbod1bkCtlWMPf3g |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Emma B Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:07 PM btw The Independent is one of the youngest UK national daily newspapers. The daily edition was named National Newspaper of the Year at the 2004 British Press Awards. The Independent is regarded as leaning to the left politically, although it has not affiliated itself to any political party and a range of views can be found on its editorial and comment pages. - Wiki |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: CarolC Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:07 PM CarolC, whether you don't know what you are talking about, or you have political reasons to pretend you're blind. It is not a matter of different ideas, but of basic perception of the situation. Roberto, it's quite obvious that I am far better informed than you are. Everything I have said is backed up with facts and evidence. You, apparently, have swallowed the propaganda. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: CarolC Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:12 PM mousethief, Hamas has done a lot to try to stop the rockets. Of course, it's efforts were hampered a bit when Israel massacred a couple of hundred of their police in the massacre of '08/'09. Kind of hard to keep order if all of your police have been blown to bits, and it seems like Israel must have wanted to make it difficult for Hamas to keep order, or they wouldn't have blown up all of those police. But all of that aside, what government has complete control of its people? The people who are firing the rockets are in opposition to Hamas, and they are doing it to undermine Hamas' efforts to bring a resolution to the situation. Hamas has adhered to every ceasefire they have agreed to, including the unilateral ones. This is a fact and is not disputable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Roberto Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:15 PM CarolC, your critical sense is so sharp when directed towards Israel and so dull when applied to Hamas. Far better informed: a self-appointed medal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: CarolC Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:16 PM Roberto, snipes are not arguments. They are the absence of an argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: CarolC Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:17 PM http://imeu.net/news/article0019152.shtml#1 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:22 PM Krauthammer: Those troublesome Jews Charles Krauthammer Friday, June 4, 2010 The world is outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers. But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel -- a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets. In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded ("quarantined") Cuba. Arms-bearing Russian ships headed to Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew that the U.S. Navy would either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry. Oh, but weren't the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel's offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiel and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza -- as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza. Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel's inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas. Israel has already twice intercepted ships laden with Iranian arms destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that? But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade? Because, blockade is Israel's fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself -- forward and active defense. (1) Forward defense: As a small, densely populated country surrounded by hostile states, Israel had, for its first half-century, adopted forward defense -- fighting wars on enemy territory (such as the Sinai and Golan Heights) rather than its own. Where possible (Sinai, for example) Israel has traded territory for peace. But where peace offers were refused, Israel retained the territory as a protective buffer zone. Thus Israel retained a small strip of southern Lebanon to protect the villages of northern Israel. And it took many losses in Gaza, rather than expose Israeli border towns to Palestinian terror attacks. It is for the same reason America wages a grinding war in Afghanistan: You fight them there, so you don't have to fight them here. But under overwhelming outside pressure, Israel gave it up. The Israelis were told the occupations were not just illegal but at the root of the anti-Israel insurgencies -- and therefore withdrawal, by removing the cause, would bring peace. Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land -- evacuating South Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks and, from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack. (2) Active defense: Israel then had to switch to active defense -- military action to disrupt, dismantle and defeat (to borrow President Obama's description of our campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda) the newly armed terrorist mini-states established in southern Lebanon and Gaza after Israel withdrew. The result? The Lebanon war of 2006 and Gaza operation of 2008-09. They were met with yet another avalanche of opprobrium and calumny by the same international community that had demanded the land-for-peace Israeli withdrawals in the first place. Worse, the U.N. Goldstone report, which essentially criminalized Israel's defensive operation in Gaza while whitewashing the casus belli -- the preceding and unprovoked Hamas rocket war -- effectively de-legitimized any active Israeli defense against its self-declared terror enemies. (3) Passive defense: Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses -- a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international de-legitimation. Even the United States is now moving toward having it abolished. But, if none of these is permissible, what's left? Ah, but that's the point. It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem. What's left? Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense. Why, just last week, the Obama administration joined the jackals, and reversed four decades of U.S. practice, by signing onto a consensus document that singles out Israel's possession of nuclear weapons -- thus de-legitimizing Israel's very last line of defense: deterrence. The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: CarolC Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:29 PM Jon Stewart (a "troublesome Jew") on Charles Krauthammer |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:33 PM "If you can't refute the content attack the source - weak and pathetic." So he is right about the statements of fact, since you can only attack the writer? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: Emma B Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:39 PM The Australian June 2nd "ISRAEL'S murder of the human rights activists on the MV Samoud on Monday brings into focus its policy of disregard for human lives and disrespect for international laws and conventions. This policy has been a product of world apathy to the plight of the Palestinians and US blanket support for Israeli actions. The policy, best described as "shoot first and explain later", is heavily reliant on a well-funded PR department (Hasbara) in the Israeli government. However, the real support for this policy comes from Western governments, including our own, which have provided support and excuses for Israel's actions in the past and today have to share part of the blame for the killing of innocent civilians. Israel's policy has been practised on a daily basis in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Much of these activities rarely get a mention in the world media. However, the spectacular events and civilian casualties during the war on Lebanon in 2006, the war on the Gaza Strip in 2008 and the killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai were well covered in the media. These violations of human rights were hardly investigated, and Israel did not pay any price for its blatant disregard of international law. If anything, these wars have provided testing grounds for Israel's weapons and the footage has been used to sell more arms to the world. One wonders, should not the world community feel responsible for the deaths of those civilians? Many in Palestine and the Arab world have been calling on the world not to apply double standards when it comes to Israel. Yet many governments, mainly for financial reasons, have found a populist spin to sell to their constituencies to justify the Israeli actions. However, it has become clear the tide is turning and governments that support Israel are running thin on the ground to justify intentional, vicious aggression that violates every norm in our society. Those governments and individuals have to shoulder their responsibility for Israel's latest act. The world has reacted angrily to the Gaza flotilla events and so it should. It should also express harsher sentiments on the three-year blockade of the Gaza Strip, which amounts to collective punishment forbidden under international law. It is likely, too, that Israel will pay a small price in the short term for its actions. These condemnations are symbolic only and are ineffective in the long term. They need to be followed by decisive actions that will send a message to Israel that the world is not willing to tolerate this any more. Not only governments have responsibility to act but also every individual who feels compelled to react to this needless aggression and loss of lives. The nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions of Israeli products and institutions campaign has been in place for a few years. It empowers every citizen in the world to express disgust at Israel's action. The Australian government has described Israel's action as deplorable and called for a full investigation. Although this is commendable, the Australian people should demand Australia reassess its close ties with Israel. On the day the government sent ASIO officers to Israel to investigate the passport forging affair, Australia signed a $250 million arms deal with Israel. This speaks volumes on the real relationship with Israel. The Australian government and others across the world should endorse the BDS campaign, as they did with South Africa, and demand that Israel end the blockade of the Gaza Strip, agree to a UN peacekeeping force, dismantle the illegal settlements and the apartheid wall and enter into immediate and serious negotiations to end this 62-year conflict. Inaction will be interpreted as an endorsement for Israel's act and a caveat for its next atrocity" Well now we could go on posting excerpts from the Press ad infinitum - even take a straw poll to detirmine which countries regard the attack and killings on the Flotilla as illegal Oh, I'm sorry, that would be 'the usual suspects' - The UN, Europe etc..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: CarolC Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:40 PM This is for you, Roberto. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpMpHgw7yVk beardedbruce, are you trying to make it look like that quote in your post there is from me? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: CarolC Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:43 PM ...or are you doing that thing again where you act like you think that everyone who is on the other side of an argument from you is a part of a borg collective, so it doesn't really matter which one of us says what? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:49 PM I did not intend to imply that YOU had made the statement- but are you saying it is NOT true? If that is the case, you had best not complain about personnal attacks, since you are useing them as opposed to a debate on the facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: CarolC Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:51 PM By the way, I will use as precedent in my argument in response to Krauthammer, who is not a troublesome Jew, but rather, a troublesome fascist, that Israel attacked Egypt because of a naval blockade. If it was illegal for Egypt to blockade Israel, and if Israel was justified in attacking Egypt because of it, Israel really can't then turn around and say that its own blockade is not an act of war that is subject to defensive action. What's good for the goose... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid From: CarolC Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:52 PM I don't think he's attacking Krauthammer, beardedbruce. I think he's attacking Krauthammer's lies. Big difference there. |
