(hat tip, Ron M.
When IDF soldiers attempted to peacefully stop a Turkish-backed flotilla attempting to break the Gaza blockade, they were subjected to a vicious assault, as the above videos show. The "peace activists" were warned that they were in a closed military zone, and there's no reason they could not have followed the Israeli ships to Ashdod where the supplies they intended to deliver would have been searched for weapons and then trucked to Gaza.
That of course was not their intention. What they wanted was a confrontation.
The IDF had previously been ordered by the commander of this operation to conduct themselves professionally in the face of what was expected to be provocation in the form of spitting, cursing, and perhaps a small amount of physical resistance.
What happened instead is that they ran into a brutal, planned ambush:
Officials estimated that passengers will show slight resistance, and possibly minor violence; for that reason, the operation’s commander decided to bring the helicopter directly above the top deck. The first rope that soldiers used in order to descend down to the ship was wrested away by activists, most of them Turks, and tied to an antenna with the hopes of bringing the chopper down. However, Flotilla 13 fighters decided to carry on.
Navy commandos slid down to the vessel one by one, yet then the unexpected occurred: The passengers that awaited them on the deck pulled out bats, clubs, and slingshots with glass marbles, assaulting each soldier as he disembarked. The fighters were nabbed one by one and were beaten up badly, yet they attempted to fight back.
However, to their misfortune, they were only equipped with paintball rifles used to disperse minor protests, such as the ones held in Bilin. The paintballs obviously made no impression on the activists, who kept on beating the troops up and even attempted to wrest away their weapons. {...}
The forces hurled stun grenades, yet the rioters on the top deck, whose number swelled up to 30 by that time, kept on beating up about 30 commandos who kept gliding their way one by one from the helicopter. At one point, the attackers nabbed one commando, wrested away his handgun, and threw him down from the top deck to the lower deck, 30 feet below. The soldier sustained a serious head wound and lost his consciousness.
Only after this injury did Flotilla 13 troops ask for permission to use live fire. The commander approved it: You can go ahead and fire. The soldiers pulled out their handguns and started shooting at the rioters’ legs, a move that ultimately neutralized them. Meanwhile, the rioters started to fire back at the commandoes.
“I saw the tip of a rifle sticking out of the stairwell,” one commando said. “He fired at us and we fired back. We didn’t see if we hit him. We looked for him later but couldn’t find him.” Two soldiers sustained gunshot wounds to their knee and stomach after rioters apparently fired at them using guns wrested away from troops.
As the above videos show, the so-called peace activists attacked the IDF soldiers with guns, knives, firebombs and other improvised weapons.From what was discovered on board in terms of weaponry, it's obvious this was planned in advance.
Two Israeli soldiers sustained gunshot wounds, one was stabbed and a number of them sustained serious injuries at the hands of the 'activists'. Ten of them were killed, and after what happened, I'm surprised it wasn't more.
Turkey's PM minister Tayyip Erdogan recalled Turkey's Ambassador to Israel, as expected and warned of 'irreparable consequences.' Turkey's Islamist Prime Minister has been looking for an excuse to end relations with Israel for some time, and this may very well be it.
The EU, as expected, was fairly harsh in its condemnation, and the UN's Ban Ki Moon was quoted as saying that Israel 'must provide an explanation.' An emergency Security Council meeting has been scheduled. And don't be surprised if th eUS doesn't back Israel.
White House spokesman Bill Burton, traveling with the president in Chicago, told reporters:
"The United States deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries sustained, and is currently working to understand the circumstances surrounding this tragedy."
This will likely be used as a stick to get Israel to end the blockade of Gaza...which of course, if the Israelis cave will mean that Iran will be able to resupply Hamas with weaponry.
And as an aside, no one in the international community is criticizing these 'activists' for their inhumane refusal of the plea of Hamas captive Gilad Shalit's parents to carry letters and packages to Gaza for Shalit. He's been held incommunicado by Hamas for almost four years now.
Obviously, their so-called compassion doesn't extend to Jews.
The big talking point with the blame Israel brigade is that the ships were taken in international waters.
Except there's no "safe" spot for blockade runners, in international waters or otherwise. Israel had no duty to wait until the ships crossed into Israeli waters.. not when these blockade runners clearly announced their intentions to violate them and set sail.
Israel gave these ships every opportunity to end this peacefully and deliver humanitarian supplies to Gaza, if that was their intention, both before they assembled and after they attempted to breach the blockade.
That of course is not what they had in mind at all, and they can hardly complain if they got what they came for. Buy the ticket, take the ride.
Chazak Ve'ematz (Strength) to the Tzahal and refuah shleima (quick recovery) to the soldiers who were wounded.
UPDATE: Bookworm Room And Soccer Dad have valuable takes on this, and more videos.
"The "peace activists" were warned that they were in a closed military zone.."
ReplyDeleteExcept the ships were NOT in a closed military zone. The were on the open sea, in international waters.
"..and there's no reason they could not have followed the Israeli ships to Ashdod where the supplies they intended to deliver would have been searched for weapons and then trucked to Gaza."
In the exacts same reasonable tone, there is no reason for the Israelis to have boarded the ships in a pre-dawn raid. They could have just escorted the ships to Ashdod (as they have before).
And there are no guarantees that the aid would make it through the blockades in a timely fashion if they let the Israelis handle it, as Israel has already stated that it only lets 15,000 tons into Gaza per week (which the UN says is a quarter of what is needed).
Hello UNconvinced,
ReplyDeleteYou're misinformed. The ships were in a closed military zone, and blockade running is an act of war.There's no 'free space' for it. Nor were the Israelis obligated to provide one.
The US used the same rational to sink Iranian ships back in the'80's when they attempted to interfere with Gulf shipping.
And yes, the ships could have complied with the Israeli request. In fact, five of them did so, and only one ship - the one where the ambush was planned - did not. Obviously that was deliberate.
I'll leave out the 'humanitarian' impulses of people that would supply a terrorist organization that murders civilians and oppresses its own people with supplies while refusing to take packages and letters to an illegally kidnapped prisoner.
Aside from which, Gaza is hardly as destitute as you make out.
Israel has a blockade on Gaza for th esame reason Egypt does - to prevent weapons from reaching Hamas.No terrorist threat or rockets, no blockade,simple.
I admit, I have the feeling that in your case,Israel is simply guilty as charged no matter what it does or doesn't do.
Regards,
Rob
[ Apologies for the length ]
ReplyDeleteWait.. before we go any further. You are suggesting that a single video, showing 30 people at most, in a clearly privileged fashion having dinner in an obviously exclusive restaurant somehow has any bearing on the lives of the actual people in Gaza?
And you pointed out that two of the diners hold top political positions.
Are you actually suggesting (rhetorical; you definitely are) that because the political elite of a country dines well, that all members of that country dine equally well?
Show me an example in history where the ruling elite's status was an equivalent indication of the populous' status. You think I can't go find footage showing the leaders of other states dining fabulously, while their citizens go hungry?
Does Israel itself not reap the benefits of foreign aid? Do Israelis go to restaurants?
It proves nothing, except that the ruling classes are out of touch will the lower classes.. Same as it ever was. But every non-Israeli NGO working in Gaza says the same; the people need more aid.
_______
And just because you say "no" about the closed-military-zone, doesn't make the facts any less true.
1) Israel has said it will keep a 20 mile separation zone off Gaza.
2) The Mavi Marmara (and all flotilla ships) were well outside it when boarded.
3) Israel's right to even police the 20 mile section is disputed.
"Blockade running is an act of war"
So is blockade-forming.
"And yes, the ships could have complied.."
But why should they? Because Israel has guns?
"..the one where the ambush was planned - did not. Obviously that was deliberate."
These are the machinations of a paranoiac. You'd think if they'd planned an ambush they would have had better "weapons" than the metal bars and sticks you find on ships. Sure, the last remaining free-ship may have heard what was happening on other ships, and decided to resist. That is not an ambush.
However, boarding a sovereign ship in international waters is piracy.
"I'll leave out the 'humanitarian' impulses of people that would supply a terrorist organization that murders civilians and oppresses its own people with supplies while refusing to take packages and letters to an illegally kidnapped prisoner."
Wow, so black and white in your eyes. I could just say something opposite and be as justified in my view as you appear to be in yours. But then we'd both be full of shit. It isn't that clear, and the only people who pretend (or believe) it is are fundamentalists with little regard for the nuances of reality.
The situation in Israel/Palestine has been built, atrocity by atrocity, on both sides. But to so casually demonise the other side smacks of dehumanisation. "Terrorists" are much easier to hate.
"I admit, I have the feeling that in your case,Israel is simply guilty as charged no matter what it does or doesn't do."
No. Really. If they stopped being such a bully I'd be rooting for them.
If they stopped investigating suspected individual-enemies, with missiles in populated areas, I'd be more inclined to think they cared about getting their man than meting out collective punishment. If they stopped their citizens building illegal settlements on occupied land (and even recently relinquished land), I'd think they meant what they said about withdrawal. If they weren't orders of magnitude more powerful than their attackers, yet still dealing out disproportionate responses..
Hell, forget the civilian population. If journalists stopped getting murdered by the IDF, I'd think they at least understood the signal they've been sending to the world for so long.
Puh-leeze, UNconvinced. Gazans are being fed, and quite well. The Roots Club video is just one example of restaurants where biz is booming.
ReplyDeleteThe Israelis (and Egypt) aren't blockading food - they're blockading weapons shipments.
What do you expect them to do, wait until Iran or Syria ships Hamas a nuke or chemical weapons? Continue to allow Hamas to fire rockets against their civilians?Any other country would have wiped Gaza off the face of the earth already. Can you imagine what the Russians would do if they got hit with rockets? or the UK, where you live?
As for international law, take a look at The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994, an accord both Turkey and Israel are signatories to:
SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Neutral merchant vessels
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture.
Piracy, LOL!
As for the ambush, if all they had were a few sticks, please explain why one Israeli was stabbed, firebombs were thrown, some IDF soldiers suffered ax wounds and two Israelis suffered gunshot wounds.
This was intended to be a confrontation. Five of the ships followed the Israeli Navy into Ashdod and nothing happened to them. One ship didn't, the one where the ambush was planned.
I also reject your rather sickening moral equivalency.The situation in Israel was NOT built built, atrocity by atrocity, on both sides. The Israelis were the only nation in the Midle East to actually give the Palestinians some land of their own via Oslo, and they were rewarded with Arafat's war on their civilians. And yes, the violence was started by the Pals.
When the Israelis left Gaza,they were guaranteed by the PA, EU and US that Gaza would not become a security threat to Israel, and the Pals had a chance to govern themselves. You saw how well that worked out. The Israelis put up with 13 dead and over ten thousand rockets before Cast Lead, but to you, I suppose that makes them 'bullies'.
BTW, I notice that like many people of your persuasion, you favor apartheid and segregation, provided it's limited to Jews, whom you feel shouldn't have the right to live in certain areas because they're Jews.
Duly noted.
And pray tell me how you consider Judea and Samaria occupied land, when it belonged to no country but was illegally occupied by Jordan in 1948 and the Jewish inhabitants killed or driven out - under the command of Colonel Glubb and his contingent of British officers, I might add?
And also..why is it Israel's responsibility to make concessions to solve a refugee problem that was only caused by the Arabs attacking them? After resettling almost a million Jewish refugees ethnically cleansed from the Arab world after 1948 without a penny's help from the UN, one would think Israel has already done its share in that regard.
Regards,
Rob
"BTW, I notice that like many people of your persuasion, you favor apartheid and segregation, provided it's limited to Jews, whom you feel shouldn't have the right to live in certain areas because they're Jews."
ReplyDeleteNo. Not even close. There is nothing I'd rather see happen than Jews and Palestinians living side by side in each other's negotiated sovereign territory. Frankly, I haven't even mentioned Jews. I've talked specifically about the state of Israel. If Israel's Muslims, Christians or Scientologists are building illegal settlements, they can bugger off too.
And I presume you are in the US, by your avatar. You expect to hear about the Palestinian plight on the news there? I doubt it.
"Can you imagine what the Russians would do if they got hit with rockets? or the UK, where you live?"
I don't know if you heard but.. the UK got hit by many, many explosive devices (etc.) at the hands of the various paramilitary factions of Ireland/Northern Ireland. And they didn't "wipe [Ireland or Northern Ireland] off the face of the earth".
"As for the ambush, if all they had were a few sticks, please explain why one Israeli was stabbed, firebombs were thrown, some IDF soldiers suffered ax wounds and two Israelis suffered gunshot wounds."
Yep, some knives (I think I have one of those somewhere) and some axes (fire, anyone?) don't make an ambush. We'll see what comes out about first-fire and guns in the hands of civilians. Neither of us has any more info than the rest of the world on that.
" ..are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture."
I'm sure they meant a *legal* blockade, or one recognised by more than Israel.
"..sickening moral equivalency.."
And if you cannot see any parity of escalation (in lots of different areas), between Israel and the Palestinians over the years, we have little more to talk about. The UN and various international governments have filed many resolutions on Israeli Human Rights abuses.
And to be clear, I'm not British. I'm Irish. So I've seen the "underdog" side of a similar fight. Yes, one side "started it". But it ended somewhere else.
What I'm saying here is that both sides have blame, but that civilians need to have their quality of life raised. I'm not defending Hamas or Fatah. All you have done is defend Israel's right to carry on flailing. You see Israel playing underdog to the surrounding Arab states, but the Palestinians are playing underdog to Israel. There is always blame on both sides. But it is in the dominant nation's power to choose how to handle the situation NOW.
Not then. Then is over. We are HERE NOW. And now, Israel is the dominant power.
There is indiscriminate killing on both sides. 100%. You don't have to agree with the other side to recognise that small fact. It's out of hand, and admissions need to be made on both sides to move forward. But if you cannot recognise that, you are fundamentally blinkered.. if not blind for good.
I hope the people in control have a clearer view.
Cheers.
And finally, a word from wikipedia (I know you won't stoop so low as to disregard it based on it's origin alone. Citations supplied!) on the settlements i was referring to.
ReplyDelete"International intergovernmental organizations such as the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention,[9] every major organ of the United Nations,[10] the European Union, and Canada,[11] have declared that the settlements are a violation of international law. A review of Israel's country report conducted by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination stated "The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention, which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There is a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, is an imperative norm of international law."[12] Non-governmental organizations including Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have also characterized the settlements as a violation of international law. In 1978, the Legal Adviser of the Department of State to the United States Congress concluded that "the establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law."[13][14] Israel, the Anti-Defamation League and some prominent legal scholars disagree.[15][16][17]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
/Done
Hello, Unconvinced,
ReplyDeleteFirst off, apologies for thinking you were a citizen of the UK rather than Eire. No insult intended.
As to your wikipedia definition of 'occupation', without being rude I could give a rip. That definition of 'occupation' does not correspond to Webster's or any historical instance in history.
I assume you know the history of the area - Judea and Samaria were never parceled out to anyone but were illegally occupied by Jordan after 1948, after the Jewish inhabitants were ethnically cleansed.No country outside the Arab world recognized Jordan's occupation except the UK.
What you likely don't know is that areas like Ariel, the Gush Etzion bloc and a number of other areas you call 'settlements' were legally purchased by Jews from the Arabs via the Jewish National Fund. I know a family that was there in 1948, was driven out and then got their land back after Jordan attacked Israel in 1967 after listening to Nasser's horse manure about how he was winning the war. Want to rob them a second time?
Being Irish, you ought to know what getting your land stolen feels like.
You also likely don't know that 95% of what you call settlements were deliberately built in areas that were either vacant, former Jordanian government land,legally purchased Jewish property that had been expropriated or all three.
Building the Jewish communities,orders were given that there was to be no expulsions and no confiscation of Arab owned private land.
I stand by what I said about segregation and apartheid. There's only one place in the Middle East where Jews and Arabs live in relative peace and under the rule of law, and that's Israel.
The 'Palestinians',like their Arab brothers cannot tolerate a single Jew in their presence.
Gaza's a good example. The Jews that lived there had prosperous farming greenhouses going in places like Gush Katif and when the Israelis pulled out, you would have thought that people who intended living in peace next to Israel might have asked at least some of them to stay and help build their economy, right?
Wrong. It was 'Jews raus!'. And this was the PA,not Hamas BTW.
Oh,and those greenhouses? They were given intact to the Arabs and were wrecked and looted within a couple of hours after the Jews left.
You see, the problem isn't like Ulster, two peoples quarreling over the same turf,but with no intention of making the other side extinct.
That's real issue in the Middle East, friend. Not the 'settlements' not Jerusalem, not 'refugees'. it's the inability of the Arabs to live in peace and equality next to Jews in any area the Arabs control.
Since that's true, I stand by the segregation and apartheid remark. Buy the ticket, take the ride.
To get what you want,( and I certainly wouldn't mind it)you're going to have to change the Palestinian's mentality, particularly Hamas' genocidal agenda. Best of luck.
I'm afraid I also have to stand by the moral equivalency remark. it is the Palestinians who have gone out of their way to target civilians, and who have been educating their kids that homicide bombers and people who kill women and kids are 'holy martyrs'. The Israelis haven't. End of story.
Oh, the blockade.Being a bit picky and choosy about our international law, are we? If you read the law, the Israelis were well within their rights. The US used that exact justification to sink Iranian ships in the Gulf in the 1980's when they tried to interrupt shipping.
Regards,
Rob
"End of story"
ReplyDeleteOK. You are lost then.
I guarantee, if the people running the peace process think in the same black & white terms as you do, you will never "win" this conflict.
It cannot be won militarily. But that's all you're left with if you cannot look at the situation objectively and own your own actions. Take responsibility for the mistakes you made. It's almost as simple as that.
Israel has the power to be the bigger man here and put history behind it. But all I hear from you is "he started it", "he hit me, I didn't even hit him back", "I hit him this time, because there was this one other time and he said mean things".
The Palestinians are wretched beggars pulling at the hem of Israel's expensive skirts. They have shitty rockets and are trodden into the mud by Israel's extensive, over-capable boots.
There is no parity in power between them. Israel has control. They should use it to help them both out of the gutter.
"Oh, the blockade.Being a bit picky and choosy about our international law, are we? If you read the law, the Israelis were well within their rights. The US used that exact justification to sink Iranian ships in the Gulf in the 1980's when they tried to interrupt shipping."
And this flippant shit? Yes, picky because more people unnecessarily died.
You keep saying that Israel is in the right, legally (not just the blockade/boarding). But if the whole rest of the world thinks (and states) that you are behaving illegally, maybe you need to look again.
And why do you keep using US actions as a barometer of acceptability? You are wa-ay off base if you think US foreign policy is often in the right. Their actions are self-serving and don't usually reflect the rest of the world's needs or desires.
[ I probably won't reply any more, so you can trounce me with the last word ]
Hello UNconvinced,
ReplyDeleteNot a matter of 'trouncing'. I enjoy honest debating, you're welcome anytime as long as you stay respectful and as you've realized by now, I don't run this site as an echo chamber. I merely point out several inconsistencies in your logic and what I see as your lack of knowledge about this particular situation.
In fact,the only way this can be settled is with one side losing. Hamas, Hezbollah and those countries that support and finance them and others like them are going to have to be confronted militarily or otherwise to end this, just as the Nazis were. The IRA only ended it's violence when Eire stopped offering them a haven.
Victory and a clean slate is what ultimately allows peace when the antagonists are this diametrically opposed.
Has it ever occurred to you that if Israel behaved like Hamas, the 'Palestinian problem' would have been history a long time ago?
And how do you expect Israel to help them out of the gutter when they spend all their energies teaching their kids and their people to hate Jews and destroy them?
Like I said, what happened in Gaza with the greenhouses is a good example.
You keep saying that Israel is in the right, legally (not just the blockade/boarding). But if the whole rest of the world thinks (and states) that you are behaving illegally, maybe you need to look again.
So it's what the mob thinks rather than the morality and justice that makes law? At one point, a majority of Europeans in some countries were quite comfortable turning Jews over to the Nazis to be gassed - which was also strictly legal in most of Europe at that time. Today, if you took a poll of the Muslim world (and probably a lot of Europeans)there would be a consensus for the same thing.
According to international law, (UNSCR1860) the blockade shouldn't even be necessary because it prohibited member states from illicit trafficking of arms and munitions to Hamas. Did Iran and Syria ever suffer any consequences for violating it? or is 'international law' only valid when it works for the convenience of Israel's enemies?
As for the US, while we operate out of our own self interest(and what country doesn't?), we've been far more altruistic and giving than most of the world deserves, frankly.
Eire was able to be neutral in WWII,shelter German U-Boats and still survive Hitler as a free country because the Allied military defeated him,( tell me with a straight face Hitler wouldn't have violated your neutrality whenever he felt like it) and it was American blood and treasure that kept the Soviets off your neck during the Cold War, along with the rest of Europe.
A little gratitude would not be out of place.
Regards,
Rob
"At one point, a majority of Europeans in some [?] countries were quite comfortable turning Jews over to the Nazis to be gassed" ... "Today, if you took a poll of the Muslim world (and probably a lot of Europeans)there would be a consensus for the same thing."
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry Rob, but that is utter horse shit. No one even knew until the Grojanowski papers in 1942. It wasn't publicly broadcast til 1943, four years since it began, and at which point the whole of Europe was occupied. Few believed it at first, because it was so outrageous. But you want me to believe that most Europeans would have helped, had Hitler only asked.
F*** right off. (you ask for respect, that is the very limit of mine)
And if you believe that any significant portion (ie. not neo-nazis) of Europe's population would hand Jews to Nazis today you are so far down the rabbit hole that there is no point in even debating politely.
I am utterly offended that you believe this (and I presume you are talking honestly, and not out to simply offend or rile).
___
FYI: Ireland may have been officially neutral, but hundreds-of-thousands went to fight in WW2.
"In the course of the war an estimated 70,000 citizens of neutral Ireland served as volunteers in the British Armed Forces (and another estimated 50,000 from Northern Ireland,[6] , and this figure does not include Irish people who were resident in Britain before the war (though many used aliases). Some 200,000 Irish migrated to England to participate in the war economy— most of them stayed after the war."
And Ireland was in dispute with Britain for 800 years, so being pals all of a sudden is just as unlikely as Israel and the Arabs suddenly having a tea party. And yet individual Irish men and women still went and stood side by side.
____
"During the Cold War, Ireland maintained its policy of neutrality. It did not align itself officially with NATO— or the Warsaw Pact either. It refused to join NATO because Northern Ireland was still a part of the United Kingdom. Ireland offered to set up a separate alliance with the USA but this was refused. This offer was linked in part to the $133 million received from the Marshall Aid Plan."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality
And you might show a little gratitude for refuelling your bombers in Shannon.
Another FYI: the u-boat myth is just that.
http://www.uboat.net/special/myths/
Hello again UNconvinced.
ReplyDeleteAre you seriously trying to tell me that Europeans in the Ukraine, in the Baltics, in France, in Germany, in a host of other countries didn't realize what was going to happen to their Jewish neighbors when they were dragged off, even if they didn't know the particulars? That a number of them didn't avidly help? that the Brits didn't know they were trapping millions of Jews in Europe when they closed off all Jewish immigration to Palestine? That other countries didn't know when they refused Jews entry?
Reading suggestion: The War Against the Jews by Lucy Dawidowicz.
As for today, I think a lot of Europeans would be happy if the Jews just left quietly, so as not to annoy their rapidly growing new Muslim constituencies. A lot less messier and no smell of burning flesh downwind to annoy anyone.
Of course, there were and are exceptions.I never suggested you weren't one of them.
But you might be a bit more understanding of why Jews feel a bit worried about trusting to the good intentions of others.
As for feelings in the Muslim world on the subject, I suggest you consult the Qu'ran, and the Hadiths,( the Islamic version oif the Gospels) like Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177. or just listen to what's coming from Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran. If you have any doubt that had Israel lost any of its wars there would have been a wholesale massacre or that much of the Muslim world would happily acquiesce, I don't quite know what to tell you.
And that still doesn't answer my original point about your notion of what makes law, does it?
I'm fully aware of the so-called Wild Geese who fought Hitler. All honor to them,but the country was still officially neutral and had Hitler won, would not have remained free for long. QED.
I've heard different things about the U-Boats, but I'll be gracious and concede that point. And thanks for Shannon, OK?
Which brings us back to our original discussion:
Why can't you concede Israel the right of self defense by keeping Iranian arms out of Gaza?
Why would you support segregation and apartheid for Jews, since that's what a Palestinian state amounts to? And are you for robbing people of their land a second time?
How do you plan on fixing the inability of the Arabs to live in peace and equality next to Jews in any area the Arabs control?
How do you expect Israel to help them out of the gutter(as you put it) or make peace when the Palestinians spend all their energies teaching their kids and their people to hate Jews and destroy them?
I'm sure you have answers to all these basic questions and simply missed them in your responses.
No malice - I'd really love to hear your answers.
Regards,
Rob