It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Israeli troops acted legally in ship raid acording to Israeli report

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
This just in! Fox Federation finds Foxes acted responsibly in Hen-house massacre.




posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Magnum007
 


reply to post by PhantomLimb
 


reply to post by kozmo
 


reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Dear Sir or Madam,

You have made a post that dares to criticize Israel. As you know, this makes you an anti-semite. I would like to point out the following facts that are relevant to the discussion:

[x] 6 million Jews died in the holocaust.
[x] You are an anti semite.
[ ] Israel made the desert bloom and we have beautiful beaches.
[x] The Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years.
[x] All arabs want to push the Jews into the sea.
[x] Israel is a shining example of democracy and ethnic discrimination does not exist.
[ ] Suicide bombers are killing Israeli citizens and collective punishment will put a stop to this eventually.
[x] The IDF are showing remarkable restraint; They have the power to nuke the entire region but choose not to.
[x] It is the fault of the Palestinians that they don't rebuild infrastructure fast enough after we bomb it.
[ ] Arafat walked out on camp David, proving that 100% of Palestinians want war, not peace.
[x] The Jews are God's chosen people™ and this is the land that was promised to us by a book.
[x] It is not a genocide until hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are killed and we aren't even close to that yet.
[x] 100% of Palestinians are terrorists.
[ ] The Arabs drove the Jews from their homeland thousands of years ago so it is about time for some payback.
[x] Israel has killed fewer people than Iran or Iraq which means we are a peaceful state.
[x] Carpet bombing an entire country is a perfectly rational response to the kidnapping of a soldier.
[x] It's not a concentration camp, it's a safety wall!

Therefore, your claim of [Criticism against Israel] is false and you should continue to send money and military support to Israel.

Yours sincerely,
AIPAC

P.S. you are an anti-semite.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by gravitational
Anyway, there were two foreign observers and advisers in that commission, Lord William David Trimble, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and Ken Watkin, international lawyer and former judge advocate general for Canada.
I guess their say on the commission's conclusions is also worthless by your standards.
www.ynetnews.com...


Is it the same David Tremble, a politician from Northern Ireland, who belongs to a party which has always traditionally supported Israel.
Just two months prior to being selected to be an observer for the inquiry, David Trimble became a member of the "Friends of Israel Initiative".
Source

Oh and is it the same Ken Watkins who is the head of a military justice system. He will only be able to understand this from a military perspective. The chances that he will favour the actions of the Israeli soldiers is very likely. It would be difficult to find someone who we couldn't assume which side they are going to support... but it would definitely have to be someone who is not in the military.

For this particular investigation, it should have been an international investigation, it should not have been conducted by Israel anyway so there's little point in suggesting who I think would be a better candidate.
edit on 24-1-2011 by EFGuy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Amazingly (yet unsurprisingly) you 100% ignored everything I said. And then you tried to make arguments that I had already countered, before you ignored them. Let's try this again, and try to not be a duplicitous weasel this time, hey?


Originally posted by Eliad
If I remember correctly they could in fact declare a blockade because they are at war with Hamas and Hamas is the single ruling entity in Gaza, or something along those lines


Gaza is not a separate political entity from the West Bank. Together they are under hte government of the Palestinian Authority. Hamas is the dominant political party in Gaza, but you cannot declare war on a political party or a fragment of a nation (or in this case, a semi-nation.) Declaring war in Hamas in Gaza is exactly the same as declaring war on Republicans in Texas. You just can't do it, because declarations of war just don't function that way.



How do you conclude that it isn't effective?


Because the stated goal of the blockade is to deny arms to Hamas; which has obviously not been very effective.



But the blockade in itself does not have the sole purpose of starving the civilian population, the fact that it did hurt the economy might be wrong, but not illegal according to international law.
And do you find that the economic damage of the blockade was excessive in relation to the fact the Hamas stopped getting ship loads of weapons? Can you really make that call?


I did in fact say that was not the goal of the blockade, didn't I?


sub-point b is the important one (Even I don't think it's Israel's intent to starve the Gazans).


Yes, yes I did.

And yes. Hamas' capacity to fight has not been damaged by the blockade. In some ways the blockade has strengthened Hamas, adding recruiting material and making them the sole functioning economic entity in Gaza.

A fairly practical measure is the question, if the blockade were lifted tomorrow, would the Israeli people find themselves in a position equal to or less than the condition of Gazans under the blockade, as a result of Hamas' attacks? Even before the blockade, the answer was no.


I agree with parts of you analysis, but I don't think that we have enough data on smuggling before and after the blockade, nor are we legal experts of international law...


Thankfully, the international laws at hand are pretty clear-cut. that's the fact for a lot of international law, in fact - you don't want a lot of bureaucratic red tape when dealing with multiple countries with who knows how many languages.

1) You cannot declare war on a political party or a portion of a nation.
2) A blockade that does not achieve its goals is ineffective, thus illegal.
3) A blockade that causes undue harm to noncombatants relative to the gain of the blockading entity is illegal.
4) If you perform an illegal act of war, you are a war criminal.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by EFGuy
 


Consider your post stolen (and starred for your trouble)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Lol that's like saying, "O.J. Simpson did not kill those people, according to O.J. Simpson."

Well no # the Israeli report is going to say they acted legally..



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Ear-Responsible
 


Man, don't compare Israel to O.J.!

Even Israel doesn't have the balls to write a follow-up report titled "But if we did..."



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 

Ha! Good point. However, this ordeal isn't over yet


2nd



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 





Let's try this again, and try to not be a duplicitous weasel this time, hey?

Woah, take it down a notch, man, let's be civil here, I didn't ignore any of your points..


Gaza is not a separate political entity from the West Bank.

It turned into one when it kicked out the PA from Gaza. The Palestinian people currently have two governments, separate in every way but nationality.


Together they are under hte government of the Palestinian Authority.

*sigh*...


Following the victory of Hamas in the 2006 Palestinian legislative election, Hamas and Fatah formed a Palestinan authority national unity government headed by Ismail Haniya. Shortly after, Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in the course of the Battle of Gaza,[43] seizing government institutions and replacing Fatah and other government officials with its own.[44] By 14 June, Hamas fully controlled the Gaza Strip. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas responded by declaring a state of emergency, dissolving the unity government and forming a new government without Hamas participation.

en.wikipedia.org...

No they aren't.

And appearently you can declare war on an armed group.. Something that's called a non international or international armed conflict, depends on how you see Gaza.

'[A]n armed conflict exists whenever there is a resort to armed force between States or protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within a State.'

www.iilj.org...

It is possible.

But these are old laws.. Won't a good lawyer be able to sway it either way?


Because the stated goal of the blockade is to deny arms to Hamas; which has obviously not been very effective.

*sigh*...

Oh, it's obvious, is it? And how is that? What kind of data do you have on smuggling before the blockade and after? How do you know they wouldn't have a lot more guns right now had the seas been open for smuggling?

What data do you have to show that it hasn't prevented Hamas from smuggling tons more of equipment and guns?

Smuggling by sea is much easier than smuggling by land and tunnels, and the IDF has caught tons of guns and ammo on ships in the past.


I did in fact say that was not the goal of the blockade, didn't I?

Sorry, I sort of read and reply line by line, my bad. No need to get so aggravated, by the way, honest mistake..


And yes. Hamas' capacity to fight has not been damaged by the blockade. In some ways the blockade has strengthened Hamas, adding recruiting material and making them the sole functioning economic entity in Gaza.

You know this because you have data?
Because you're a military analyst?
Because you've looked for information on the impacts of the blockade on Hamas?

I agree that it probably did add recruiting material for Hamas, but that doesn't mean the blockade isn't crippling their capabilities.. They get advanced anti tank missiles only now, while Hezbollah has them for at least 5 years, for example.


A fairly practical measure is the question, if the blockade were lifted tomorrow, would the Israeli people find themselves in a position equal to or less than the condition of Gazans under the blockade, as a result of Hamas' attacks? Even before the blockade, the answer was no.

The blockade wasn't imposed because Israel felt like it's losing the war, it was imposed to weaken Hamas, and minimize casualties to both the military and civilian population..


Thankfully, the international laws at hand are pretty clear-cut.

Regretfully, it isn't, and if you had researched the subject you'd know that there is a lot of gray areas concerning fights like the one with Hamas, as the law is very old, and many of its definitions (even ones added in 94') are outdated.


Again, I respect your opinion, and I don't disagree on all accounts, and I can certainly see where your coming from, but at the end of the day, or rather at the end of all the legal mambo jumbo, Israel is in the right here. These are laws of war, they aren't municipal laws.

Now as for the blockade not being justified- I can't accept your opinion when it's not backed up by data.. The blockade might have prevented tons of weaponry from reaching Gaza, that in itself might have been worth it.

And don't get so agitated about all this, we're all looking for the truth, we're just coming from different directions.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by EFGuy
 


Doesn't it bother you that non of these points were brought up and no one has been called an Antisemite?

You're stereotyping an opinion in an attempt to make it invalid, but not only is your stereotype completely inaccurate, all you're basically doing is lowering the debate to the level you perceive the pro Israelis to be in.

So what's the point, other than being funny?



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Eliad
 


Hey dude.

I have read most of this thread, and I hope what I'm about to ask ain't off-topic. I have a few questions for you since you seem like you're much in the know.

You keep talking about Israel having the right to defend themselves etc. Against whom though? Against the people who actually own and inhabit the land who still think it has been taken from them by force and want it back?

Most Stateless Palestinians residing all over the world have no rights whatsoever. These people are Palestinians who used to live mostly in Norhtern Palestine pre-1948 Israeli invasion. Well, you know the outcome of that unfair/unjust invasion, they were either killed or kicked out by force to become Stateless Palestinians/Refugees. What exactly was their crime then? Will Israel take them back and compensate? Israel allowed immigrants of Jewish background to migrate and inhabit these same lands. Why? Since Israel seems to have no problem taking in immigrants, why not take the Stateless Palestinians back to their homes? Why only Jewish immigrants?

Israel only talks about defending their right to exist now, as if they own that land and never forcefully and unlawfully occupied it. Couldn't you just simply migrate to Palestine without initiating war? There were Jews living among Arabs anyway, so why the need to aggressively occupy Palestine and make it a Jewish only state? Is that even lawful?

These are only a few questions that have always been on my mind and never seemed to find any answers.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TitaniumL
 





Against whom though?


Only against those that actively try to harm its civilians.

The problem starts when people begin to confuse those that actively try to hurt them with the rest of the population.

This goes for both dies.



Most Stateless Palestinians residing all over the world have no rights whatsoever.


That's completely untrue, in most cases they have more rights than the citizens of the nation they're reside in.



the outcome of that unfair/unjust invasion

You mean the war? In which Jewish villages were massacred as well? In which lynches by preformed on both sides? In which Arab invading armies attempted to take control of Palestine and force the Jews out? That invasion?

It was the Arab armies that invaded, mind you. It obviously doesn't start and end there, but it can't be simply defined as an "unjust invasion"...



What exactly was their crime then?

They fought alongside the Arab armies.. The villages overlooking the path to Jerusalem, for one, used to wreck havoc on convoys, butchered hundreds, if I remember correctly, of people trying to get supplies to the besieged Jerusalem.



Will Israel take them back and compensate?

Compensate with money, probably.



Israel allowed immigrants of Jewish background to migrate and inhabit these same lands. Why?

Because of the 1949' armistice signed between Israel and the Arab nations.



Since Israel seems to have no problem taking in immigrants, why not take the Stateless Palestinians back to their homes?

Well, they knew the Jewish immigrants wouldn't try to kill them... Israel at its early stages was still under threat of being destroyed..

Whether or not it was a good enough reason, it was definitely not right towards the Palestinians.



Couldn't you just simply migrate to Palestine without initiating war?

Who exactly initiated the war?



There were Jews living among Arabs anyway, so why the need to aggressively occupy Palestine and make it a Jewish only state?


They didn't have a peaceful life either.. Arab Jews (they were both Arab and Jewish, by the way), Arab Muslims, and Arab Christians were always fighting amongst themselves.

The land wasn't aggressively occupied, and up until the 1920's Arabs and Jews in Palestine got along well enough.. After the fall of the Ottoman empire things began to go ape #, and if you ask me, you can trace it all back to politics rather than actual suffering of one side or another.



Is that even lawful?

An armistice is legal, yes (referring to the 49' armistice).



These are only a few questions that have always been on my mind and never seemed to find any answers.

I don't have all the information either, most people don't, they just look for the tidbits that support their world view, and ignore the rest.

With respect,
Eliad.
edit on 18-3-2011 by Eliad because: Grammer



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
You honestly expect an honest and open investigation when Israel investigates itself then the result and final report will always be biased in their favour.

How about we let say, Mexico investigate this as they could do an unbiased investigation.




top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join