10 dead as Israeli forces storm Gaza aid convoy

Status
Not open for further replies.

hairrific

Established Member
Reaction score
7
aussieavodart said:
hairrific said:
Because of constant attacks the check points were put in place.

I would have that the old 'unprovoked violence' excuse wore thin with even the most casual observers of this conflict. Apparently not. Why is that?

So now the victim is the one who hijacks of ships, steals land and attempts to starve out an entire population. Are these acts of charity that should met with thanks by those on the receiving end?


Consider the plight of the black man in the USA. Suffering in bondage and slavery, had no justice, yet never spit in the face of there keepers, and were not violent. Trusted and set free, no suicide bombers necessary. (hello?)

Followed Dr. Martin Luther King with peaceful demonstrations, no rockets, or suicide bombers just a plea for equal rights. Look what the black man has now here in the USA. And they needed no terrorist, no guns to smuggle in on board aid shipments.....come on world wake up and don't support violence against your abusive keepers and you will be set free.
 

Smooth

Experienced Member
Reaction score
2
Hammy070 said:
The US and Autralia analogy is inaccurate.

Firstly, they were at a time when slavery, colonization, racism were perfectly acceptable.

Israel was created when those things were either outlawed or in the process of being outlawed. Entirely different contexts.

So by your logic, its perfectly fine to steal lands and slaughter on people from 3rd world countries? and lets go with that logic for a sec, now when the western world is very developed, liberal, there is absolutely no racism onceOever, why wont the white men go back to his original roots in Europe and give the land they stolen to the natives? trust me, the Indians wont stop you with their bodies :)


just a little quiz for you guys here, anyone knows what is the origins and meaning of the word "Palastine" ? and does it a word in Arabic? :)
 

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
Smooth said:
By this logic, both America and Australia should give back lands to Native Americans and Indigenous Australians .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title


We aren't corralling them into enclaves and trying to make life as miserable for them as possible. They get full rights, one of the most important being able to vote. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza don't get to elect the people who control their lives.
 

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
hairrific said:
aussieavodart said:
hairrific said:
Because of constant attacks the check points were put in place.

I would have that the old 'unprovoked violence' excuse wore thin with even the most casual observers of this conflict. Apparently not. Why is that?

So now the victim is the one who hijacks of ships, steals land and attempts to starve out an entire population. Are these acts of charity that should met with thanks by those on the receiving end?


Consider the plight of the black man in the USA. Suffering in bondage and slavery, had no justice, yet never spit in the face of there keepers, and were not violent. Trusted and set free, no suicide bombers necessary. (hello?)

Followed Dr. Martin Luther King with peaceful demonstrations, no rockets, or suicide bombers just a plea for equal rights. Look what the black man has now here in the USA. And they needed no terrorist, no guns to smuggle in on board aid shipments.....come on world wake up and don't support violence against your abusive keepers and you will be set free.

I don't see you demanding the Israelis abide by an oath of non violence.

If you approve of the use of deadly force in the act of self defence (perceived or otherwise) which you do, then shouldn't this 'right' be extended to everyone?


Also, Palestinian non-violent resistance is commonplace and there about 11 Palestinian human rights organisations, most of which operate in the West Bank and Gaza. None of this gets any play in the western media. Jamal Juma, Mohammad Othman, Abdallah Abu Rahmah are prominent non-violent activists in the West Bank and all have been locked up without charge by the Israelis at one time or another.

Non-violence doesn't work in every situation (I'm not neccessarily saying violence will)
 

Smooth

Experienced Member
Reaction score
2
aussieavodart said:
We aren't corralling them into enclaves and trying to make life as miserable for them as possible.
i dont think that the natives back then put on a fight, and i dont think they are blowing buses with civilians in them. ( and i dont want even start to imagine how your government would react to that...)

yet the basic logic still stands, you should all leave and give the lands to their rightful owners - not you.
 

Hammy070

Established Member
Reaction score
0
its not a question of true or not, its simple logic...which by it, everyone should be where they came from the first place.

No...this isn't logical at all.

Nobody can know where they came from in the first place. But let's say we can google "where did I originally come from" and magically it tells us the exact coordinates within 0.025 seconds.

Exactly what would one expect to find?

The googled query is itself a fallacy. The real question is "where's home?"

Nobody can argue with where ones' home is, and the answer is usually of certainty. Let's stick with that, because your "logic" is infact pointless, who is to say how far back we should go and whether we should stop?

It's convenient for you to stop at 1500 BC? Why? Because going further back means you need to consider returning to Iraq, or wherever your own personal narrative describes as the place you wandered into Canaan from.

But why just stop there? Let's all go back to East Africa where the original homosapiens are thought to have originated from?

Better yet why not go into space, if we're star dust, then our home truly lies in the final frontier. In fact we should all just explode with a big bang if we're really accurate. Maybe the closest thing to home for all of us is the Large Hadron Collider. Hmmm...tempting...need to buy some curtains and a flat screen.

So by your logic, its perfectly fine to steal lands and slaughter on people from 3rd world countries?

How this is a logical conclusion of anything I've said is beyond me.

just a little quiz for you guys here, anyone knows what is the origins and meaning of the word "Palastine" ? and does it a word in Arabic?

Is that you're secret weapon? Etymology?

Palestine is of Roman origin. England is of German. Iran is of Sanskrit.

Israelite, Philistine, Phoenician, Ammonite, Moabite, Edomite, Canaanite are just some of the people who have inhabited this part of the world.

I don't see any Phoenecian nationalists or Ammonite nationalists laying claim to the land.

The reality is, the Palestinian population are an amalgamation of all the above, plus the Arabs and Turkss. They also undeniably have Jewish ancestry too. Think about it. The Palestinian Christians who number several million - did they come from Arabia? No. Many are descendents of the Jewish people who converted to Christianity. The Muslim population are virtually the same as the Christian, with a slight favouring of southern Arabs. It would not shock me in the least if half the Palestinians were in fact descended from Jewish people. In fact, they can be the only population that has the right to claim ancient ancestry, not that it really is important to me.

The confusion lies in the term "Arab". Which in the Arab world does not mean "from Arabia", but a speaker of Arabic, for a few generations so as to render them culturally Arab.

It links them to Arabia as much as it links Barack Obama (speaks english) to England.

Additionally, the 'Arabs' have inhabited this land far far longer than all Israelite kingdoms put together.

Am I saying there should be no Jewish people? Definitly not. They form an integral PART of the regions history, and would simply be unnatural for there not be a significant Jewish presence in the region.

Nobody has a problem with Jews being self-determined.

We have a problem with it coming at the expense of an entire people.
 

Nene

Senior Member
Reaction score
12
I think we all can agree that moving in and taking land from people is wrong. Furthermore, I think most of us will agree that after generations the wrong can no longer be righted. Giving land back to people and forcing entire communities to pick up and move from the home they know (many of which will undoubtedly be children and others who had no part in the invasion) is also not really a feasible or fair solution. I know it was wrong for the Indians to get their land stolen but I'm not about to pick up and leave my house. This is why I feel Israel should've never been created in the first place. Giving people land that was theirs 1000s of years ago? Thats ridiculous! However, going along with my logic above, now that perhaps a generation has passed, we cannot expect Israelites to pick up and leave Palestine. What we can expect is for them to stay within their borders and to treat Palestinians humanely. If the Israelis were more fair to the palestinians, how much would they have to worry about Hamas or other terror attacks? Anti-semitism is a real thing, and I'm sure that some Muslim extremist nut jobs would still be hell bent on destroying Israel. However if this was the case, the whole international community would back and support Israel in any sanctions or military attacks they would use in their defense against terrorists extremist and any countries that support them rather than condemning them and their sanctions.
 

Smooth

Experienced Member
Reaction score
2
Hammy070 said:
We have a problem with it coming at the expense of an entire people.
Yet every great nation on Earth did just the same no more then few hundreds years ago - not that it makes it right, but dont be hypocritical saying "give back the land which is not yours" while you yourself live in a land which was brutally stolen by your great great fathers not too long ago, not only that but we both agree Israel tribe (or jewish people of any tibe or sort) used to live there 1000s years ago, which gives it a slightly more justification wanting to come back to Israel.

fyi Palestine comes for the ancient Hebrew word "Plishtim" which means invaders....the original Palestinians didnt live here at all, most came from Greece and Rome and some sort of mingle of whatever used to be there after the Israel tribe was persecuted 1000s of years ago.

Nene, great post, agree with every word!
 

Hammy070

Established Member
Reaction score
0
The Philistines?

Interesting...

If the bible is a worthy source:

Genesis 21
32Thus they made a covenant at Beersheba: then Abimelech rose up, and Phichol the chief captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines. 33And Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting God. 34And Abraham sojourned in the Philistines' land many days.

Exodus 23:31
I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the desert to the River. I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you.

This was before Israel wasn't it?

PS: Owned.
 

Smooth

Experienced Member
Reaction score
2
lol as i said ancient Hebrew word (hence its in the bible) and i know the meaning since ... well i speak Hebrew.. the Hebrews back then named them like this lol its an Hebrew word, not like they referred theselves as "Plistim" (or by others)

"most of them" doesnt mean all of them..... some came live there just before the Hebrews flea from Egypt... their origins are from Ancient Greece (i think) this is what the "mingle" made out of.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_ ... origin.php
"The word itself derives from "Plesheth", a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as "Philistine". Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory"

the word "Palash" is in Hebrew... :whistle: ps:wtfpwned
 

hairrific

Established Member
Reaction score
7
aussieavodart
I don't see you demanding the Israelis abide by an oath of non violence.

If you approve of the use of deadly force in the act of self defence (perceived or otherwise) which you do, then shouldn't this 'right' be extended to everyone?

Forget if it's a right allowed by law, it is first a choice the Palestinians have just like the Israelis, but what kind of fool makes the choice to attack those more powerful?? When I want something from my boss I use my head, it is not a matter of "I am right and he is wrong", its called "good horse since".

aussieavodart
Also, Palestinian non-violent resistance is commonplace and there about 11 Palestinian human rights organisations, most of which operate in the West Bank and Gaza. None of this gets any play in the western media. Jamal Juma, Mohammad Othman, Abdallah Abu Rahmah are prominent non-violent activists in the West Bank and all have been locked up without charge by the Israelis at one time or another.

Non-violence doesn't work in every situation (I'm not neccessarily saying violence will)
[/quote]

aussieavodart, you and the Palestinian friends are wasting your time seeking justice. Forget about justice and stop your whining. I told you to consider the Black race in USA. They never got justice, but by non-violent diplomacy and earning trust of those in power they overcame oppression and today at least have the right to legally seek justice and the opportunity to receive it.

Palestinians should have some of those brains and stop hanging with Hamas and electing other low life that don't even formally recognize Israel as a nation declared by the UN. They even pledge destruction of the Jewish state. I mean come on aussieavodart, no wonder they are are not trusted nor accepted.....
 

Hammy070

Established Member
Reaction score
0
Smooth,

It doesn't matter about the word, whatever name we give them, the Bible says they were there before Israel.

I don't know why you emphasise Greek origin. If there is any it is minimal and if not, then irrelevant. They are certainly more likely to be descended from Israelites than from Greeks.

In any case, most Israelis do not have origins anywhere near it.

I don't even use that as an argument, I'm showing you the irrelavance of using historical ancestry to prove anything, as almost everyone at some point has ancestry somewhere else. This is the main point.

You need to logically follow your thought process to the end.

According to you:

Palestine is a Hebrew word>3000 years ago we were fighting them>Palestinians today have no claims.

Is that your view? I don't think it is.

I used to make such arguments, but found they can't be followed through to make a valid conclusion.

So right now it's simply the case, Palestinians today...do not belong anywhere else except in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. I think this is self-evident to most reasonable people.

Palestinians should have some of those brains and stop hanging with Hamas and electing other low life that don't even formally recognize Israel as a nation declared by the UN. They even pledge destruction of the Jewish state. I mean come on aussieavodart, no wonder they are are not trusted nor accepted.....

I agree to the extent that military action will not work. I agree that non-violent action is the best way, for ANYTHING.

That said, it is a thing which is said with ease, acted with great difficulty.

It was non-violent for a long time, it changed nothing for the Palestinians though. Arafat actually gave up most of Palestine in an agreement at Camp David. It changed nothing. Israel still built settlements, still encroached on the rights of Palestinians. This was all in a non-violent context.

I would have found it extremely difficult to not resist that, as would most of us.

But I think they should have stuck with it. After a while, the world would have seen a peaceful Palestinian population whom despite agreeing a deal were still being occupied. That said, what would have happened in this scenario? I am cynical anything would have happened at all. I imagine the Palestinians knew this, and some decided to use violence.

The situation won't change until Israel has an incentive to stop its' expansion, and that it will face some consequences otherwise. Currently they can occupy and build settlements to their hearts content, with impunity. They use any act of frustration by Palestinian militants to accelerate their expansion.
 

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
Smooth said:
aussieavodart said:
We aren't corralling them into enclaves and trying to make life as miserable for them as possible.
i dont think that the natives back then put on a fight, and i dont think they are blowing buses with civilians in them. ( and i dont want even start to imagine how your government would react to that...)

yet the basic logic still stands, you should all leave and give the lands to their rightful owners - not you.

Well, at least you see the similiarity between European colonialism/ subjegation of the natives in Australia and what Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza, that's something I guess. BTW the natives here did fight back on occasion, they too were regarded as terrorists and savages.

So why shouldn't non-aboriginal people give the land back to the natives?

For starters where would Australian citizens go? It's not like they have another state to go to, unlike West Bank settlers.

Secondly, giving all of the land to the decendents of the original inhabitants would mean one ethnic group weilding enormous power over another. Australia only just recently shook it's culture of race based rule- why would we go back it? That isn't reasonable repairation, it's a step back into an ethnocentric culture.

Thirdly, we have to draw the line somewhere. The birth of international law post WWII set a new standard for how nations are supposed to behave if they want to regard themselves as civilized countries. Israeli colonialism started after this.
 

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
hairrific said:
Forget if it's a right allowed by law, it is first a choice the Palestinians have just like the Israelis, but what kind of fool makes the choice to attack those more powerful?? When I want something from my boss I use my head, it is not a matter of "I am right and he is wrong", its called "good horse since".


Has your boss ever bulldozed your house just because it was in his way, killed your children because they perceived a 'threat' or had the authorities evict you because you weren't Jewish?

Can you honestly say you would not get violent if those things happened to you?

Palestinians should have some of those brains and stop hanging with Hamas and electing other low life that don't even formally recognize Israel as a nation declared by the UN. They even pledge destruction of the Jewish state. I mean come on aussieavodart, no wonder they are are not trusted nor accepted.....

You do realize that there are currently politicians in Israel who approve of ethnic cleansing don't you?

Hamas, the Arab league, the PLO, Hamas, the organization of Islamic states- are all onboard with the two state solution. This is a matter of public record.

Every year there is a vote at the UN on the two state solution. Last year the vote was 164 in favor, 7 against. Guess who they were?

Against: Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/cd3 ... enDocument

(btw the voting record is about the same every year)

So taking into account that Israel vote against a peaceful resolution at the UN every year, coupled with the fact that they are building on land that doesn't belong to them but belongs to the Palestinians, how can you possibly suggest that it's the other side that should get all the blame?
 

Smooth

Experienced Member
Reaction score
2
aussieavodart said:
Has your boss ever bulldozed your house just because it was in his way, killed your children because they perceived a 'threat' or had the authorities evict you because you weren't Jewish?

Lets be more accurate here, bulldozed houses of terrorists ...

http://www.highbeam.com/Doctor/1P1-98630694.html

http://www.life.com/image/2914376

children who held guns and aiming them towards soldiers.

http://infotzion.files.wordpress.com/20 ... rifles.jpg

your 3rd claim only shows how little you know of Israel, all 3 religions live peacefully inside Israel (take Jaffa for example, your ethnic cleansing theory by Israel is complete bs , there are even arab parties in Israel government... get the basics right before you come up with outrageous claims.)
 

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
Smooth said:
Lets be more accurate here, bulldozed houses of terrorists ...

http://www.highbeam.com/Doctor/1P1-98630694.html


Rubbish.


Punitive demolitions: Houses demolished as punishment for the actions of people associated with the houses. The actions in questions have been everything from political organizing to attacks on Israeli
civilians. This policy was suspended by the IDF in February, 2005 after it reached the conclusion that rather than deterring attacks, punitive demolitions only enflame the people and lead to more attacks. The
practice was resumed on 19 January 2009. Although this is thought of by most people as the main reason why houses are demolished, in fact punitive demolitions account for only 8.5% of all defined demolitions.
Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states, “Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of
intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.â€￾ Punitive demolitions, by definition, violate this statute.

Administrative demolitions: Houses demolished for lack of a building permit. This happens in Area C and in East Jerusalem, under exclusive Israeli authority, though prior to the existence of Areas A, B & C it
occurred in other areas as well. It is important to point out that in almost all cases, Palestinians have no choice but to build "illegally" as permits are almost impossible to obtain. It is also the case that in Area B,
if a house is in close proximity to a military base or a road used by the military or settlers, it may also face administrative demolition. Israeli officials explain this type of demolition by stating that Palestinians are
violating the zoning and planning laws and that the demolitions are merely law enforcement. This type of demolition accounts for approximately 26% of defined demolitions. Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva
Convention declares that the destruction of property “is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.â€￾ With these demolitions there is no pretense of
military action, and are as such clear violations of international law.

Land-clearing operations/Military demolitions: Houses demolished by the IDF in the course of military operations for the purposes of clearing off a piece of land (for whatever reason), achieve a military goal or
to kill wanted persons as part of Israel’s policy of extrajudicial executions. Military demolition account forabout 65.5% of defined demolitions. Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention applies and the IsraeliDefence Force itself found, referring to Operation Cast Lead, the massive destruction of homes “is very difficult to justify from a legal perspective,

http://www.icahd.org/eng/docs/ICAHD%27s ... istics.pdf



Over 4,000 houses were destroying during Cast Lead and the Israeli government is yet to provide an explanation as to why it was necessary to do so. I've read many than a few cases of Palestinians having their houses bulldozed to clear an easier path for Israeli tanks. When you read alll of this stuff together with the half a million olive trees demolished in the last decade, the bombing of key economic infrastructure etc it becomes clear that it's more about vandalism then security.


children who held guns and aiming them towards soldiers.

like this one?

I guess that means we don't need to hear any evidence as to why all the other hundreds of kiddies have been bumped off by the IDF. We can just take the Israeli foreign ministry's word for it that they posed a terrorist threat. Like the aid workers.

your 3rd claim only shows how little you know of Israel, all 3 religions live peacefully inside Israel (take Jaffa for example, your ethnic cleansing theory by Israel is complete bs , there are even arab parties in Israel government... get the basics right before you come up with outrageous claims.)
[/quote]

I must be imagining all those housing evictions in East Jerusalem then. You know the ones- they throw the Arab family out on the street and then straight away a Jewish family moves in (or settlers just come in and throw the arabs out themselves). No different to the explusions in 48 and 67. Which you'll probably deny as well.

Religious harmony? pffft . Not even your bestest friend in the whole wide world agrees with that-

Israel dismally fails the requirements of a tolerant pluralistic society, according to a new report from the U.S. State Department.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/ne ... ety-1.4683


Your parliament just voted to strip an Arab MK of her priviledges because she did the unthinkable and got onboard an aid ship trying to deliver food and medicine to a bunch of people your government is trying to starve to death and now it's trying to shut down human rights organizations. Some democracy you've got there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top