Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Reports: Israeli ships attack aid flotilla

page: 160
271
<< 157  158  159    161  162  163 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by makeitso
 


Actually in that list of 10 things only one of them appears to have been a real event, and it does not answer the question of area 'c' you brought up.

Of those ten, nine are simply accusations of failure to do something that the Israels percieve needs to be done in absence of proof.

Saying you have failed to extradite a terrorist is not the same as documenting which terrorists were not extradited and what evidence was compiled to suggest they were terrorists.

When someone wants to extradite a suspect of a crime from the United States they have to display some basic reasonable evidence of the crime that they stand accused of. Failure to do so results in the extradition being declined.

Further in the one concrete example of where violence really did occur, the incident is not documented either, as to why the Palestinian opened fire on IDF and Israeli Settlers, where they in the process of starting an illegal settlement?

If so, then it would just be a case of Palestinians attempting to enforce the Accords.

With Israel provocating the reaction through first violating the accords itself.

Charges like inciting violence become meaningless when the violence that supposedly was incited is not documented either.

By the way those ten things which are all basically just allegations of not doing something or having done something that produced no documented result is plastered on dozens of dozens of pro-Israel sponsored web sites, dominating the search engines.

On the other hand, Israels violations all resulted in something concrete and documented to point to, with real documentation and statistics of.

Not saying that the Palestinians have not violated the Oslo Accords but if those are the top ten violations of the Palestinians most of them are just trumped up allegations and the one that might not be is very poorly sourced as to what actually transpired.

I did look at all those fluff websites I was hoping since you are so passionate about this issue you would have something with some meat on it to look at.

I am dissapointed you could not even tell me where this area 'c' is that the Palestinians alegedly built on in violation of the accords or document it.



[edit on 6/6/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]




posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by makeitso
 


Actually in that list of 10 things only one of them appears to have been a real event, and it does not answer the question of area 'c' you brought up.

Of those ten, nine are simply accusations of failure to do something that the Israels percieve needs to be done in absence of proof.


Actually, those were just from a quick google. You know there are myriads more, and so does everyone else.



I did look at all those fluff websites I was hoping since you are so passionate about this issue you would have something with some meat on it to look at.


Actually I'm not passionate about it at all. I was simply mirroring your posts so you could see how you were presenting circular logic, one sided, and falacious arguments, and how silly it makes you look.


I am dissapointed you could not even tell me where this area 'c' is that the Palestinians alegedly built on in violation of the accords or document it.


I'm dissapointed you could not even tell how silly your one sided arguments are, and that you have not changed you tactics.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
lets go isreal lets go!
lets go isreal lets go!



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by makeitso
 





However saying that because these alleged violations have not been punished does not make the Oslo Accords defunct. As I have already stated, it is the legally binding agreement between both parties that is still in effect.

Which is why the UN recognized the Oslo Accord as being a valid agreement empowering Israel to carry out an legal blockade by using a legal instrument that both parties signed.



Actually in regards to the first yest it does make it desuetude an outdated or unenforcable legal doctrine.

In relation to number two, no the UN has not recognized Israels illegal blockade of Gaza as lawful which is why it has condemned it, proof of that provided by another poster 3 pages back.

As far as the Palestinian violations of the Oslo accords I was hoping you could demonstrate some real violations like Palestinians stealing Israeli Land or running over Israeli Peace Activists with Bull Dozers, TWICE! Like the Israelis did with Rachel Corrie while violating the Oslo Accords by bull dozing a house.

So I guess the Palestinians have not been making illegal settlements, running off Israelis with armed gangs of settlers, poisoning Israeli Wells, or Uprooting 10,000 year old Israeli Olive Groves, or buldozing Isreali Homes or stealing Israeli Land or any of that stuff.

It seems like nine of the ten so called violations that the Israelis are accusing the Palestinians of is really just about not all Palestinians wanting to condone and submit to Israel's violation of the Accords.

Perhaps even all ten of them.

Clearly the Oslo accords are in desuetude and unenforcable, and clearly the UN has condemned the blockade and issued very strong language to Israel to lift it, which is all it can do, since no law is enforcable against Israel that it violates because the United States always vetos the sanctions in the security council even if every other nation on earth except Israel and the United States is in favor of the sanction.

Yes the big problem here is dual standards and the circular logic employed by people opposed to peace.

Thanks.


[edit on 6/6/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by makeitso
 





Actually, those were just from a quick google. You know there are myriads more, and so does everyone else.


Actually no I don't, and even an exhaustive google will turn up those same ten items again and again on one pro-Israeli site after another.

That's why I asked you for something more detailed and factual like explaining the details and sources of your Palestinians built illegally in section 'C' of Palestine, but you have not been able to provide any sources for that, so it would appear that even you are unaware of what these imagined violations are since you can't provide details or sources even to the allegations you yourself have made in regards to Palestinians violating the accords.

I have an open mind but it requires detailed and factual sources of information.

If you run across any real violations of the Oslo Accords by the Palestinians that you can actually document the occurence of please let me know. I am genuinely interested in if they have violated them and when and what they did.

Thanks!



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

In relation to number two, no the UN has not recognized Israels illegal blockade of Gaza as lawful which is why it has condemned it, proof of that provided by another poster 3 pages back.


Strange, Ive read the full text of the President of the Security council statement after the big meeting about the flotilla, and I dont see them condeming the blockade, or saying its illegal. Neither do they say that the Oslo Accords are outdate and unenforceable.

Statement by the President of the Security Council


At the 6326th meeting of the Security Council, held on 1 June 2010, in
connection with the Council’s consideration of the item entitled “The situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question”, the President of the Security Council made the following statement on behalf of the Council: “The Security Council deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force during the Israeli military operation in international waters against the convoy sailing to Gaza. The Council, in this context, condemns those acts which resulted in the loss of at least ten civilians and many wounded, and expresses its condolences to their families.

“The Security Council requests the immediate release of the ships as well
as the civilians held by Israel. The Council urges Israel to permit full consular access, to allow the countries concerned to retrieve their deceased and wounded immediately, and to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance from the convoy to its destination.
“The Security Council takes note of the statement of the UN Secretary-
General on the need to have a full investigation into the matter and it calls for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards.

“The Security Council stresses that the situation in Gaza is not
sustainable. The Council re-emphasizes the importance of the full
implementation of Resolutions 1850 and 1860. In that context, it reiterates its grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza and stresses the need for sustained and regular flow of goods and people to Gaza as well as unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza.

“The Security Council underscores that the only viable solution to
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an agreement negotiated between the parties and re-emphasizes that only a two-State solution, with an independent and viable Palestinian State living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbours, could bring peace to the region.

“The Security Council expresses support for the proximity talks and
voices concern that this incident took place while the proximity talks are
underway and urges the parties to act with restraint, avoiding any unilateral and provocative actions, and all international partners to promote an atmosphere of cooperation between the parties and throughout the region.”



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

That's why I asked you for something more detailed and factual like explaining the details and sources of your Palestinians built illegally in section 'C' of Palestine, but you have not been able to provide any sources for that,



Actually I've been able too, I just have been busy mirroring your post so you would see you silly circlular logic and how it soesn't really work in the light of reality. But since you keep harping, here is one example, since I did bring it up while mirroring your posts.


Here is where I first read it.

Oslo Accords
After the signing of the agreements, Israel refrained from building new settlements although the Oslo agreements stipulated no such ban. However, it continued expanding existing settlements which fell far short of the Shamir government's 1991-92 level. Construction of Housing Units Before Oslo: 1991-92 14,320 units. After Oslo: 1994-95 3,850 units; 1996-1997 3,570 units [9] although the settler population in the West Bank continued growing by around 10,000 per year.[10] The Palestinians built throughout area C administered by Israel without permit.[11]




[edit on 6/6/10 by makeitso]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by makeitso
 


First they don't mention the Oslo Accords, second they strongly urge the Israelis to cease and desist with such actions, and further deeply regrets the loss of life from Israel's actions.

They are clearly insisting on a two state solution, and clearly are not advocating a continuation of the blockade.

In reality the security council spent a lot of time coming up with a statement that the U.S. would not veto, so in reality it only says as much as the United States will allow for that very reason.

Yet even then, it is strongly urging Israel to exercise restraint, and to seek real dialogue in ending the stalemate in the peace talks.

The questions of the accord and the legality of the blockade have not even been touched.

Nor have they been addressed.

Nor will you see anywhere in that statement that the blockade was legal.

Nor will you see anywhere in that statement that the Oslo Accords are enforcable.

Which is probably why they are urging all parties to resume negotiations and stop taking unilatteral actions until such time as honest negotions are entered into and result in a new accord.

Here are some other things that the Security Council does not state.

It does not state Israel was within it's rights to stop those ships.

It does not state that the people on board those ships provoked the loss of life.

It is a typical political statement by politicians desperately trying to arrive at a statement they hope will please everyone, it says very little, except what could be agreed upon, and allows a lot of room for interpretation.

Once again this is because the U.S. will veto any resolution against Israel that seeks to impose the U.N. Body on Israel in enforcable ways.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by makeitso
 


I can appreciate why you want to mirror my debating style, judging by the stars it is very effective, well at least when I use it.

I guess people appreciate the real thing more than pale imitations huh?

I had a funny feeling Area C would be in Jerusalem which is by the way property of the Holy See in perpituity per previous U.N. Agreements.

So these violations are not actually the creation of new settlements but expanding a long settled area to allow for population increase.

Which is actually more favorable than taking lands from one another's territory.

Which is what Israel should be doing to aleviate it's 'housing crisis' building in already established uncontested areas of Israel.

In reality Jerusalem is a problem, since both sides are building in areas within Jerusalem that the other side considers their's by the accords.

Which is why it is probably better to let the Holy See decide such things, since the city is property of the Holy See by treaty.

That's right the ancient capitol of Judea still belongs to Rome!

All Roads lead to Rome, and their divide and conquer strategies which is all you have been doing is promoting divide and conquer philosophies.

Thank you for answering my question belatedly.





[edit on 6/6/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Thats what I said. They did not condem the blockade.
Thus refuting your fallacious allegation that they did.


Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
In relation to number two, no the UN has not recognized Israels illegal blockade of Gaza as lawful which is why it has condemned it, proof of that provided by another poster 3 pages back.


Neither did they call it illegal, or say the Oslo Accords were outdated or unenforcable.



[edit on 6/6/10 by makeitso]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by makeitso
 


I can appreciate why you want to mirror my debating style, judging by the stars it is very effective, well at least when I use it.

I guess people appreciate the real thing more than pale imitations huh?


Touche, guess I'm not as good at circular logic, falacious exagerations, and one sided arguments as you are, huh?

Anyway, to the point. The Oslo Accords are still in force, the blockade is legal, U.N. did not condem the blockade like you said, nor did they say the blockade was illegal.






[edit on 6/6/10 by makeitso]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by mhc_70
 


Neither party is getting along, and that is always a failure to communicate fully and honestly.

Both parties have bogged down in their communications for similiar reasons and similiar accusations.

Both parties are responsible for failure in this regard.

Where people are failing on both sides in the word game, is by trying to assign the lion's share of the blame on the other side, and then absolving their side from any blame in the process.

This is not logical or rational, and thus, those thinking in that way, are not taking responsibility, and in fact are an impedement to peace, and that is something both are guilty of, when they are not trying to honestly solve their disagreements through communication.

Neither side is more or less guilty of this, and where the dual standards arise is trying to make one side more or less quilty than the other side, to justify the use of dual standards.

That inclination is even a bigger impedement to peace.

The reality is when you clean up your own backyard, the neighbors really do stop complaining!





Seems to me when this exact point was explained to you you just palmed it off with another rant, now you expect folk reading this thread not to notice...my oh my......



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by makeitso
 



The blockade has been criticized by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Human Rights Council[6][7] and other human rights organizations. It is officially supported by the United States


Wikipedia.com


Stressing that the situation in Gaza was not sustainable, the Council re-emphasized the importance of the full implementation of resolutions 1850 (2008) and 1860 (2009). In that context, it reiterated its grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza and stressed the need for the sustained and regular flow of goods and people to Gaza, as well as unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout the enclave. The Council also expressed support for the proximity talks.


Resolution 1860 calls on Israel not impeding the flow of goods into Gaza.


The Resolution called for "an immediate ceasefire in Gaza leading to a full Israeli withdrawal, unimpeded provision through Gaza of food, fuel and medical treatment, and intensified international arrangements to prevent arms and ammunition smuggling." All members stressed the importance of an "immediate and durable ceasefire".


Wikipedia

Instead it wanted international authorities to inspect the flow to make sure arms and ammunition did not reach Gaza.

So the blockade is in violation of UN Resolution 1860 as already stated dozens of times on this thread.


A coalition of humanitarian agencies, led by the United Nations and the World Health Organization, has called on Israel to lift the blockade on Gaza to prevent its health system from collapsing. Max Gaylard, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Gaza, said that unlike the tragedy in Haiti, this is an entirely man-made disaster. UN Radio's Reem Abaza spoke to Mr. Gaylard about the health crisis in Gaza.


United Nations Radio

Now please be so kind as to quote where I said that the United Nations stated the condemnation in the latest U.N. Security Council Statement on the Israeli Armed Attack on the humanitarian aide workers?

Did not say that, I said the UN has condemned the Blockade and it is illegal, which is per UN Security Council 1860, which Israel refuses to abide by.

This latest statement by the UN Security Council once again mentioned Israel's need to abide by Resolution 1860 prohibting them from blockading Gaza.

So I see no contradiction here, just an attempt to use an out of context quote to claim I said something I did not.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by gambon

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by mhc_70
 


Neither party is getting along, and that is always a failure to communicate fully and honestly.

Both parties have bogged down in their communications for similiar reasons and similiar accusations.

Both parties are responsible for failure in this regard.

Where people are failing on both sides in the word game, is by trying to assign the lion's share of the blame on the other side, and then absolving their side from any blame in the process.

This is not logical or rational, and thus, those thinking in that way, are not taking responsibility, and in fact are an impedement to peace, and that is something both are guilty of, when they are not trying to honestly solve their disagreements through communication.

Neither side is more or less guilty of this, and where the dual standards arise is trying to make one side more or less quilty than the other side, to justify the use of dual standards.

That inclination is even a bigger impedement to peace.

The reality is when you clean up your own backyard, the neighbors really do stop complaining!





Seems to me when this exact point was explained to you you just palmed it off with another rant, now you expect folk reading this thread not to notice...my oh my......


Really please quote the other member and source the post who explained this to me?

I have no recollection of such an occurence, so please demonstrate where this occured!

Is this the new desperation tactic, taking my statments that are well recieved and starred by other members and claiming that someone else said them first, and I disagreed? Prove that please.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
No its not a desperation tactic , if you trully believe your stars and flags are impressive in this threadd for some reason , or the stars and flags in other threads impress folk then your ego really does need to be put back into the box , If you cannot percieve that the majority of folk who you have been arguing with have been trying to EXPLAIN EXACTLY THIS TO you

, writing 100 words when one would do and still not answering the questions .put politely to you does not a master debater make, accusing people of supporting a police state , being in league with nazis etc etc , hardly original...

Look back at the questions I have asked you , YOU have answered none of them , simple 2 sentence questions requiring simple answers , so look back , I await your reply ...

If anybody appears desperate it is you , the classic of feigning any knowledge of something apparent to a lot of others


[edit on 6-6-2010 by gambon]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by makeitso
 



The blockade has been criticized by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Human Rights Council[6][7] and other human rights organizations. It is officially supported by the United States


Being critical of something is a far cry from being condemining by the U.N., or being illegal.

Wikipedia.com



Stressing that the situation in Gaza was not sustainable, the Council re-emphasized the importance of the full implementation of resolutions 1850 (2008) and 1860 (2009). In that context, it reiterated its grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza and stressed the need for the sustained and regular flow of goods and people to Gaza, as well as unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout the enclave. The Council also expressed support for the proximity talks.


Re-emphasizing, grave concern, and expressing support for talks is not condeming the blockade, nor is it calling illegal.




Resolution 1860 calls on Israel not impeding the flow of goods into Gaza.


The Resolution called for "an immediate ceasefire in Gaza leading to a full Israeli withdrawal, unimpeded provision through Gaza of food, fuel and medical treatment, and intensified international arrangements to prevent arms and ammunition smuggling." All members stressed the importance of an "immediate and durable ceasefire".


Calling for a cease fire leading to a withdraw in Gaza is not condeming, nor calling the blockade illegal. Neither is it nullifying the Oslo Accords.


Wikipedia

Instead it wanted international authorities to inspect the flow to make sure arms and ammunition did not reach Gaza.

So the blockade is in violation of UN Resolution 1860 as already stated dozens of times on this thread.


No, it is not. As Ive stated. Calling for a ceasefire leading to a withdraw is not saying the blockade is in violation of anything.



A coalition of humanitarian agencies, led by the United Nations and the World Health Organization, has called on Israel to lift the blockade on Gaza to prevent its health system from collapsing. Max Gaylard, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Gaza, said that unlike the tragedy in Haiti, this is an entirely man-made disaster. UN Radio's Reem Abaza spoke to Mr. Gaylard about the health crisis in Gaza.


United Nations Radio

Now please be so kind as to quote where I said that the United Nations stated the condemnation in the latest U.N. Security Council Statement on the Israeli Armed Attack on the humanitarian aide workers?


Now please be so kind as to quote where I said that you said the United Nations stated the condemnation in the latest U.N. Security Council Statement on the Israeli Armed Attack on the humanitarian aide workers?


I said the UN has condemned the Blockade and it is illegal, which is per UN Security Council 1860.


No, it has not, and no it isn't.


This latest statement by the UN Security Council once again mentioned Israel's need to abide by Resolution 1860 prohibting them from blockading Gaza.


No, it stressed the importance of Resolution 1860.


So I see no contradiction here, just an attempt to use an out of context quote to claim I said something I did not.



I see your contradiction, your one sided argument your fallacious claims, and wrongfully saying I said something I did not say, and I raise you a bullspit.

[edit on 6/6/10 by makeitso]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   

UN's Pillay: Gaza blockade illegal, must be lifted Published: 06.05.10, 13:2/Israel News



UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said on Saturday Israel's blockade of Gaza is illegal and should be lifted, and reiterated calls for an investigation into Israel's raid on aid supply ships this week. "International humanitarian law prohibits starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and ... it is also prohibited to impose collective punishment on civilians," Pillay said. (Reuters)


www.ynetnews.com...

Just to clear the air a bit, I believe the U.N. has called the blockade illegal. Whether that holds any water or not, I do not know. Whoever Pillay is made the above quotes. I believe ynet is an Israeli publication as well.


The Gaza Blockade Is Illegal and the Flotilla Attack Was an Illegal Act of War Because the blockade of Gaza itself violates international law, Israel committed an illegal act of war attacking the convoy, regardless of who attacked whom first.



Israeli officials claimed that the IDF commandos who killed and wounded dozens of activists on a humanitarian aid convoy bound for Gaza this week faced a potentially lethal attack, and opened fire in self-defense. Eyewitnesses on board tell a different story, saying the special forces troops fired on the ships before boarding, weren't in fact attacked and were unrestrained in their hostility. The question of who attacked whom is irrelevant, however, according to experts in international law. The blockade itself is illegal, and therefore Israel had no right to board those ships in the first place.


www.alternet.org...

Edited to add that above article as well. That one is not an Israeli publication though.





[edit on 6-6-2010 by jackflap]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackflap


UN's Pillay: Gaza blockade illegal, must be lifted Published: 06.05.10, 13:2/Israel News


UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said on Saturday Israel's blockade of Gaza is illegal and should be lifted, and reiterated calls for an investigation into Israel's raid on aid supply ships this week. "International humanitarian law prohibits starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and ... it is also prohibited to impose collective punishment on civilians," Pillay said. (Reuters)


www.ynetnews.com...

Just to clear the air a bit, I believe the U.N. has called the blockade illegal. Whether that holds any water or not, I do not know. Whoever Pillay is made the above quotes. I believe ynet is an Israeli publication as well.



Thanks for that, but I believe an individuals opinion, (no matter what his standing), is a far cry from a U.N. Official Statement, Resolution, or Law. Neither did he show that starvation of civilians is occuring. Humanitarian aid goes thru regularly by the ton.



The Gaza Blockade Is Illegal and the Flotilla Attack Was an Illegal Act of War Because the blockade of Gaza itself violates international law, Israel committed an illegal act of war attacking the convoy, regardless of who attacked whom first.


Israeli officials claimed that the IDF commandos who killed and wounded dozens of activists on a humanitarian aid convoy bound for Gaza this week faced a potentially lethal attack, and opened fire in self-defense. Eyewitnesses on board tell a different story, saying the special forces troops fired on the ships before boarding, weren't in fact attacked and were unrestrained in their hostility. The question of who attacked whom is irrelevant, however, according to experts in international law. The blockade itself is illegal, and therefore Israel had no right to board those ships in the first place.


www.alternet.org...




Opinions vary.
Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid


Many legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid were published subsequent to the event. International law experts (and non-lawyers) differed over the legality of the Israel action. Most, but not all, scholars surveyed by The San Francisco Chronicle said the blockade was legal




[edit on 6/6/10 by makeitso]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by makeitso
 



Israel trying to get Gaza people to overthrow Hamas Benjamin Netanyahu is lying when he says the Gaza blockade exists in order to prevent the transfer of weapons to Gaza, Uri Avnery tells Haaretz.



The photos published by the IDF and the Turkish media clearly show Israeli naval commandos being attacked, thrown from the deck and bleeding. Are you saying those photos were fabricated? The gap is created when you see only two minutes of footage; you don't see what came before or after, and so it is possible to get the impression that the Turks attacked a Jewish ship. Imagine if Jews were in distress, attacked on the high seas, with dead and wounded - just imagine the uproar. Not only the Turks see this as an Israeli attack, but the whole world does. Are you convinced this was an aid flotilla? There is no doubt. The intention of the Israeli government is to create a crisis that is so terrible that the people of Gaza will overthrow Hamas. Meanwhile, four years have passed and Hamas is stronger than it was. What is the siege for?



Benjamin Netanyahu said the siege exists in order to prevent the transfer of weapons to Gaza. This is a lie. He prevents the entrance of noodles, fruit, children's toys and paper for books. The damage caused to Israel's standing this week is greater than that caused by Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, in December 2008-January 2009. I am receiving messages from liberal Jews abroad and they see this as a disaster. We are moving forward with the blindness of the people of Sodom - struck blind and going on, increasing the wave of hatred against Israel. Is it possible that something good can come from this low point, as it did with the Exodus incident?


www.haaretz.com...

This from Haaretz. A jewish activist who sees his government's actions as deplorable. Notice how he talks about the food shipments and what Israel will let them have. Noodles and fruit aren't allowed. Edited to add the title.


[edit on 6-6-2010 by jackflap]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackflap
reply to post by makeitso
 



Benjamin Netanyahu said the siege exists in order to prevent the transfer of weapons to Gaza. This is a lie. He prevents the entrance of noodles, fruit, children's toys and paper for books. The damage caused to Israel's standing this week is greater than that caused by Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, in December 2008-January 2009. I am receiving messages from liberal Jews abroad and they see this as a disaster. We are moving forward with the blindness of the people of Sodom - struck blind and going on, increasing the wave of hatred against Israel. Is it possible that something good can come from this low point, as it did with the Exodus incident?


www.haaretz.com...

This from Haaretz. A jewish activist who sees his government's actions as deplorable. Notice how he talks about the food shipments and what Israel will let them have. Noodles and fruit aren't allowed. Edited to add the title.



I presume this is to show starvation?
No fruit huh? Arent noodles made from flour? or wheat? No paper for books?

Here is the humanitarian aid that goes to Gaza.
Gaza Strip Merchandise and Humanitarian Aid 2009-2010


2009
Produce (Fruits and Vegetables) 3,183 Trucks with 65,048.8 Tons
Flour 2,759 Trucks with 70,055.6 Tons
Wheat 2,997 Trucks with 110,812.9 Tons
School books 46 Trucks with 1,130 Tons

2010 updated June 3rd.
Produce (Fruits and Vegetables) 1,333 Trucks with 26,374 Tons
Flour 542 Trucks with 16,844 Tons
Wheat 1,454 Trucks with 52,257 Tons




[edit on 6/6/10 by makeitso]





new topics

top topics



 
271
<< 157  158  159    161  162  163 >>

log in

join