jbg Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 meaning that the rockets were not the reason for israel's attack. however, the PR that is coming out continues to say that it was a retaliation to the rockets. rockets that were hardly fired until israel attacked hamas' leaders knowing it would provoke them to respond with homemade rocket attacks.Who ever said that being a terrorist leader was a safe occupation? "Non-recognition" cuts two ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 What about the fact that in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 these "people" started wars and were beaten each time? Are you saying that war is a game of "heads I win tails you lose"? what about it? the zionists and balfour started this whole thing by unilaterally giving another people's land away. regardless, it has come too far and israel must be accepted as according to international law. however, israel should also accept the UN resolutions and remove all settlements instead of increasing them. they should also stop building the wall on palestinian land and give control back to the local people. as a jewish UK mp said recently, israel is acting like nazis in gaza. isn't it ironic how all this has been unfolding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 What about the fact that in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 these "people" started wars and were beaten each time? Are you saying that war is a game of "heads I win tails you lose"? Better hit the history books, dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) This is absolutely remarkable:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MonthlyRocketHits.svg Rockets being fired from Gaza had almost stopped completely until the November 4th Israeli attack that killed seven Hamas members. Yes, and in any case the rockets were a response to Israel's blockade of Gaza which started almost a year ago, breaking the ceasefire. Food, water, medical, supplies, everything was held at the border, to the point that 30% of the children in Gaza were anemic from starvation. http://stopthesiegeongaza.blogspot.com/200...isk-anemia.html Edited January 21, 2009 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Yes, and in any case the rockets were a response to Israel's blockade of Gaza which started almost a year ago, breaking the ceasefire. Food, water, medical, supplies, everything was held at the border, to the point that 30% of the children in Gaza were anemic from starvation.http://stopthesiegeongaza.blogspot.com/200...isk-anemia.html So you agree then that the rockets are a disproportionate response to a non violent action by the israelis...possibly a war crime? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Yes, and in any case the rockets were a response to Israel's blockade of Gaza which started almost a year ago, breaking the ceasefire. Food, water, medical, supplies, everything was held at the border, to the point that 30% of the children in Gaza were anemic from starvation.http://stopthesiegeongaza.blogspot.com/200...isk-anemia.html Amazingly, unable to get food water etc etc...they are able to get supplies to build rockets....priorities of madmen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 If they don't have a right of self-defense like Israel, why don't they? Your question and then responses to Peter are with due respect problematic. To start with your question provides the answer and so is not a question but in fact a political comment and opinion you express. So when you then repeatedly ask Peter to answer, what you were in fact doing is asking him to agree with you. To determine the application of the international law as to whether self-defence is justified or not one must look at the specific actions being engaged in, who they are targetted at, the political and legal contexts from which they are initiated and implemented, who ordered them, and whether the party engaged in them is a sovereign nation's armed forces following the Geneva Convention as to military conduct or is a terrorist organization acting outside the law. Your repeated questions to Peter want him to ignore all the above considerations and simply agree with you but the law is not applied in the simplistic, rigid, politically partisan way you want it to be and that is precisely why Peter suggested your question is pointless-precisely because you do not want to consider the context that must be examined to be able to answer such a question. The only possible answer to what you asked, is " it depends" . May I suggest international law is not applied in simple rigid black and white yes and no applications. You might see that on t.v. with t.v. lawyers asking questions, but in real life its not how the law is applied or determined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Better hit the history books, dude. Hit the history books with what, a magic rod? A drumstick? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) Hit the history books with what, a magic rod? A drumstick? Yeah...gotta love comments like that. You're never sure what part of the ol' history books one should be 'hitting'...dude. Anyways, in both 1956 and 1967, Israel took the first kick at the can. However, Nasser's actions can be seen as provocative in both wars. The Suez Crisis was more Britain's and France's show over the Suez Canal nationalization by Nasser...and choosing the Soviets in the Aswan High Dam project. It was the Cold War, afterall. Israel was enlisted into this attack by the Anglo-Frenchies. While the military campaign was a brilliant Israeli/French/British victory over Nasser's forces, it also cemented the US's domination over post WW2 politics when they forced a cease-fire on all parties. The UN blue hats were created and put between the Israelis and Arabs...the French and British left for home. The Six Day War was somewhat more clear-cut. Nasser, playing hard ball, sought to create a political crisis inside Israel by forcing the Israelis to mobilize its citizen reserve army to man the borders against the massing Arab armies on all sides. The plan apparently was to draw the situation out long enough that Israel would be forced to back down and make concessions due to economic concerns, if nothing else. Israel...unlike the Arabs with conscripted armies...couldn't afford to keep their volunteer citizen reserves in uniform for more than two weeks (estimate) without a good chunk of the Israeli economy grinding to a halt. Well that was the plan...and actually it was fairly clever. But, things started getting out of hand. Nasser's rhetoric was whipping the Arab World into a frenzy...and the people as well as the generals in the various armies were demanding an actual attack. The UN was kicked out and the Straits of Tiran closed. Israel couldn't and wasn't going to wait for what was coming next, so they struck first... Maybe that's what he's refering to... -------------------------------------------- Two pints of lager and a packet of crisps, please. ---Splodgenessabounds Edited January 23, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.