naomiglover

Simple. Israel for not allowing enough food to get in. Food that is waiting to get in. Until not too long ago, pasta was banned from entering Gaza. I hold Israel responsible for this. Do you know the travel restrictions going in and out of Gaza? How will the families move when majority are living in poverty levels? Where will the families move to? To another ghetto? Israel is responsible for this humanitarian crisis. Not only are they not allowing enough food and other supplies in (including medicine), but they have also restricted movement. Not to mention the devastating attack that has demolished an already infrastructure. Since you stepped up and tried to answer #4, care to give a response to the rest of the questions? I would like to see a direct response from an apologist to the following: If Israel did nothing wrong, both in the Gaza massacre and the attack on the humanitarian ships, then why doesn't Israel agree to an international investigation? If Israel is not occupying Gaza, then how do you explain the control of the borders, air and sea? If Israel follows international law, as according to themselves, then why do they dismiss experts like Richard Goldstone, Amnesty International and the Red Cross who have repeatedly concluded, from their investigations, that Israel has violated international law?

Not that it will happen, but it depends on the pressure. Israel would not be able to continue what it's doing without the $3billion a year and the political impunity it receives from the United States. It's those two factors that are allowing Israel to continue violate international law. Not the nuclear weapons.

Oh yeah. 4. Why does Israel continue to state that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, when Amnesty International and the UN Relief Agency, who are in Gaza, have stated that there is a humanitarian crisis, which includes over 60% of Gazan children who are malnourished?

You are linking to Glenn Beck. Others can decide on their own, but I am not entering Glenn Beck into any of my political debates, just like I wouldn't enter the former Iraqi Information Minister into any political debates.

You are right. They are different and here is how they are different: - The Iranians captured the British soldiers in disputed waters, whereas the Israelis captured the humanitarian ships in International Waters - The British navy boat is obviously considered a security risk, whereas the humanitarian ships were not, as they were searched and authorized by port authorities before departing. - The Iranians did not shoot and kill anyone even though the British soldiers raised their weapons at them, whereas 10 people on board the humanitarian ships were killed by Israeli commandos. - The response given to the 2 incidents are a clear indication of the hypocrisy that drips from the fingers if Israeli apologists. Oh wow. You just played the anti-semite card again. You and the rest of the apologists have so abused, overused and exploited the 'anti-semitism' and 'anti-Israel' accusations for improper and nakedly political ends that those terms have become drained of their meaning, have almost entirely lost their sting and have become trivialized virtually to the point of caricature. Don't people like you and DogOnPorch get sick of yourselves and your almost robotic responses when you are unable to counter facts?

These are simple questions that are never directly answered by the apologists: If Israel did nothing wrong, both in the Gaza massacre and the attack on the humanitarian ships, then why doesn't Israel agree to an international investigation? If Israel is not occupying Gaza, then how do you explain the control of the borders, air and sea? If Israel follows international law, as according to themselves, then why do they dismiss experts like Richard Goldstone, Amnesty International and the Red Cross who have repeatedly concluded, from their investigations, that Israel has violated international law?

This applies to a few posters here: Powerful states often do bad things. When they do, government officials and sympathizers inevitably try to defend their conduct, even when those actions are clearly wrong or obviously counterproductive. This is called being an "apologist," although people who do this rarely apologize for much of anything. Here are my 21 handy talking-points when you need to apply the white-wash: 1. We didn't do it! (Denials usually don't work, but it's worth a try). 2. We know you think we did it but we aren't admitting anything. 3. Actually, maybe we did do something but not what we are accused of doing. 4. Ok, we did it but it wasn't that bad ("waterboarding isn't really torture, you know"). 5. Well, maybe it was pretty bad but it was justified or necessary. (We only torture terrorists, or suspected terrorists, or people who might know a terrorist...") 6. What we did was really quite restrained, when you consider how powerful we really are. I mean, we could have done something even worse. 7. Besides, what we did was technically legal under some interpretations of international law (or at least as our lawyers interpret the law as it applies to us.) 8. Don't forget: the other side is much worse. In fact, they're evil. Really. 9. Plus, they started it. 10. And remember: We are the good guys. We are not morally equivalent to the bad guys no matter what we did. Only morally obtuse, misguided critics could fail to see this fundamental distinction between Them and Us. 11. The results may have been imperfect, but our intentions were noble. (Invading Iraq may have resulted in tens of thousands of dead and wounded and millions of refugees, but we meant well.) 12. We have to do things like this to maintain our credibility. You don't want to encourage those bad guys, do you? 13. Especially because the only language the other side understands is force. 14. In fact, it was imperative to teach them a lesson. For the Nth time. 15. If we hadn't done this to them they would undoubtedly have done something even worse to us. Well, maybe not. But who could take that chance? 16. In fact, no responsible government could have acted otherwise in the face of such provocation. 17. Plus, we had no choice. What we did may have been awful, but all other policy options had failed and/or nothing else would have worked. 18. It's a tough world out there and Serious People understand that sometimes you have to do these things. Only ignorant idealists, terrorist sympathizers, craven appeasers and/or treasonous liberals would question our actions. 19. In fact, whatever we did will be worth it eventually, and someday the rest of the world will thank us. 20. We are the victims of a double-standard. Other states do the same things (or worse) and nobody complains about them. What we did was therefore permissible. 21. And if you keep criticizing us, we'll get really upset and then we might do something really crazy. You don't want that, do you? Repeat as necessary. http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/02/defending_the_indefensible_a_how_to_guide

That's not going to happen. Israel has too much influence over the US government. Take a look at the amount of money many of the politicians receive from AIPAC. Look at his administration which includes many Clintonites that Obama had to put in to receive Clinton's support during the election. Not many presidents can become a president, without the backing of the powerful AIPAC.

"player Hoover-vac"? What does that even mean? Are you trying to be funny?

This was an interesting thread to go through. Was there a final verdict in regards to where these soldiers were captured? Iran's Revolutionary Guards may not have breached international laws when they seized 15 Royal Navy personnel last year, new documents have shown. The Ministry of Defence insisted the eight sailors and seven Royal Marines were taken at gunpoint while two miles inside Iraqi waters, but the position now appears less clear cut. a report obtained under the Freedom of Information Act has shown that the Navy personnel were taken in disputed territory rather than in Iraqi waters, as Parliament was told. The sea boundary had been decided by coalition forces without the Iranian authorities being informed, the internal report claimed. It apparently contradicted the Defence Secretary Des Browne’s speech to the Commons in which he said there was "no doubt" that HMS Cornwall was "operating in Iraqi waters". The internal MoD paper, headed "Why the Incident Occurred", was sent to the Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup. It stated that since the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s there had been "no formal ratified" border in the area. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1895896/MoD-account-of-Iranian-kidnap-in-doubt.html

Heh.

Heh. Heh.

Jerry Seinfeld shares his thoughts.

Scriblett's take.

Sharkman's reaction.

How does Rue feel about Israel's muscle flexing which happened in international waters and 10 people were killed. Also, the ship that was attacked was not a military ship. Will you try to justify your hypocrisy?

Remember in 2007, the reaction when a British Royal Navy boat was seized by Iranian military, in what Iran called, Iranian waters and later it was investigated and was shown to be disputed waters? How were the Israeli apologists' reaction to that? If heavily armed Iranian Revolutionary Guards had rappelled down from helicopters onto an humanitarian aid ship in international waters, killed ten on board and injured 50, I wonder what the international reaction would be. Would those on board who resisted be depicted as idiots who pretty much deserved whatever they got? Would the Iranians be seen as acting within their rights? Would our government and Obama be bending over backwards not to condemn them and talking about it as an 'unfortunate incident'?

Afghanistan does not have an AIPAC.

I never said what Hamas did was right or wrong. It's wrong in the moral sense. Legally, I don't know enough about the situation. The problem here is Dancer's attempt at equating the 2 situations. Not only is what Israel doing immoral, but it's also illegal under international law, since these homes are on an internationally recognized Palestinian land that Israel is demolishing, making way to building Jewish Only homes.

Trying to equate Israeli demolition of Palestinian homes, to make way for Jewish homes on Palestinian land to Hamas demolishing Palestinian homes on Palestinian land shows how desperate and how far apologists will go to try to justify violations of international law.

Navi Pillay, the United Nations' human rights chief, called the blockade devastating in an August 2009 report. Pillay said it constituted collective punishment, illegal under international law. Link A 2008 report from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) found that 70 per cent of Gaza's population suffered from "food insecurity." Link World Health Organisation says dozens of basic medicines are unavailable in Gaza Link Why are you okay with the suffering of the Gazans?

You realize that children's toys, chocolate and jam are banned from going into Gaza. Until not too long ago, diapers and crayons were banned. This blockade is a collective punishment and is humanitarian disaster. The aid ships that were seized were already inspected by the Cyprus authorities and nothing illegal was found. Stop with the hysteria. Sending food and medicine to the Gaza people is not going to kill the Jews.

The Goldstone thread title listed both Israel and Hamas for committing war crimes. Even though the crimes committed by Israel were many many more times more horrific and destructive. When faced with criticism of Israel, no matter who or which organization is doing it, your usual responses are: - It must be Jew hatred - Israel is above International law - No one is mentioning others who commit war crimes, so we should be silent about Israel You are a predictable apologist.

Of course they are diluted. This is why Israel continues to get away with what they're doing. It's obvious that the majority of people around the world, including many Jews are against Israel's crimes. If powerful lobby groups did not have a large influence on the Western politicians, it would be quite difficult for Israel to continue doing what they're doing. If we want to reduce conflicts, then we must severely reduce the hypocrisy by not supporting Israel. It's okay to condemn China for supporting North Korea, or condemn Russia for supporting Iran, but it's not okay to condemn the support for Israel? Rogue states such as N. Korea and Iran are being isolated. The same should be done with Israel.

Thank you propaganda. Here are the first few sentences in the commentary you are posting: For those who wish to end the continued existence of a sovereign Jewish state on the shores of the Mediterranean, there is only one cause worth caring about: breaking the limited blockade that both Israel and Egypt have placed on Hamas-ruled Gaza.For those who wish to end the continued existence of a sovereign Jewish state on the shores of the Mediterranean, there is only one cause worth caring about: breaking the limited blockade that both Israel and Egypt have placed on Hamas-ruled Gaza. So if you support the end of the blockade, you want the Jews to die. I have seen 2 posts from you today and both have been extreme propaganda. Way to sink your credibility.