Well said Ron Huldai...

[Humanity]

But, do you see how it really DOES make a difference to how the 'situation' would be viewed by the rest of the world if it WASN'T Israel attacking Hamas but it was 'allied forces' responding to ANY attack against Israel?

Why is that, do you think? Why is it perceived to be "evil" and "hated" when Israel does it, but acceptable when someone else does the exact same thing?

I believe that, as Israel is classified as an 'occupier' by most of the world, any attack against those are 'occupied' is seen as simply wrong...

Occupier and attacker combined is not a good combination...

Now, you can argue that Israel does not occupy Gaza, you can argue that attacks against Israel are 'freedom fighters'.... But factually or conceptually, if you like, it remains that Israel does control air, land and sea of Gaza and attacks are carried out against Israel under the 'premise' of this fact...

You could say that Turkey attacking Kurds is "evil" yet the Kurds are attacking Turkey!

As I said previously, I really don't find any 'attacks' acceptable, however, IF it became necessary, I do believe that an 'allied force', on the ground, within Gaza, would be the better option...

Ha ha ha. Who should give give this "occupied" land back to?

Again, the land was Ottoman territory for the last 700 years, then British for a short period of time, and then for 20 years it was "occupied" by the Jordanians and the Egyptians after they failed attempt to destroy Israel, which at no time during these 20 years did ANYBODY speak of this mythical invented Palestine or Palestinian people. Instead the Arabs who never recognized a "Palestine" used this land they "occupied" for 20 years to attack Israel once again, only this time they got their butts kicked once more and lost the land as well.

So who exactly does Israel give this land back to? The Turks or the British? I don't think the Jordanians and Egyptians even want the land back. They prefer to point fingers at Israel for a problem they created.

If you bothered to read the thread Roodboy you would see it is in relation to Gaza...

As you know, despite Israel withdrawal in 2005, the international community still consider Gaza as occupied...

"...the United Nations, International human rights organisations, and the majority of governments and legal commentators consider the territory to be still occupied by Israel, supported by additional restrictions placed on Gaza by Egypt. Israel maintains direct external control over Gaza and indirect control over life within Gaza: it controls Gaza's air and maritime space, and six of Gaza's seven land crossings. It reserves the right to enter Gaza at will with its military and maintains a no-go buffer zone within the Gaza territory. Gaza is dependent on Israel for its water, electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities."

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

It does not matter what they want to target, who controls what, or the reason, IT IS ILLEGAL under Security Council decisions.

Actually that's a fair point, if the Zionists do not control Gaza,as they claim, the Gazans should be able to purchase arms and equipment openly for self defence such as AA missiles or guidance equipment so they can actually target military sites without threatening civilians and import them likewise, it all depends on who wants to sell them the weapons.

(OBSERVATIONS)

Decides also that all States shall: (a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;
Source: S/RES/1373

Reaffirms its decision that States shall eliminate the supply of weapons, including small arms and light weapons (SALW), to terrorists, as well as its calls for States to find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational information regarding traffic in arms, and to enhance coordination of efforts on national, subregional, regional and international levels;
SOURCE: S/RES/2117 (2013)

General Court case: Hamas
In September 2010, Hamas brought its case before the General Court, challenging its continued presence on the EU terrorist list. In December 2014, the General Court annulled on procedural grounds the Council's decision to maintain Hamas on this list.
HOWEVER:
As of L 334/20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 22.12.2015 (updated accordingly and Decision (CFSP) 2015/1334), Annex of - GROUPS AND ENTITIES the LIST OF PERSONS, GROUPS AND ENTITIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1

• ‘Hamas’, including ‘Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem’
17. ‘Palestinian Islamic Jihad’ — ‘PIJ’.
18. ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’ — ‘PFLP’.
19. ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — General Command’ (a.k.a. ‘PFLP — General Command’).

(COMMENT)

HAMAS, as well as several other affiliated and associate activities and entities, are designed as terrorist.

You cannot supply SALW (or any weapons for that matter) to the Gaza Strip.

A review of HAMAS Policy is that reveals that: "Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights" is a open Policy of HAMAS. This liberation objective extends beyond the sovereignty over the territory occupied since 1967; a veiled by direct threat to the sovereign integrity to Israel. A policy, which has become an international and regional threat to Peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Challenger, et al,

It does not matter what they want to target, who controls what, or the reason, IT IS ILLEGAL under Security Council decisions.

Actually that's a fair point, if the Zionists do not control Gaza,as they claim, the Gazans should be able to purchase arms and equipment openly for self defence such as AA missiles or guidance equipment so they can actually target military sites without threatening civilians and import them likewise, it all depends on who wants to sell them the weapons.

(OBSERVATIONS)

Decides also that all States shall: (a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;
Source: S/RES/1373

Reaffirms its decision that States shall eliminate the supply of weapons, including small arms and light weapons (SALW), to terrorists, as well as its calls for States to find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational information regarding traffic in arms, and to enhance coordination of efforts on national, subregional, regional and international levels;
SOURCE: S/RES/2117 (2013)

General Court case: Hamas
In September 2010, Hamas brought its case before the General Court, challenging its continued presence on the EU terrorist list. In December 2014, the General Court annulled on procedural grounds the Council's decision to maintain Hamas on this list.
HOWEVER:
As of L 334/20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 22.12.2015 (updated accordingly and Decision (CFSP) 2015/1334), Annex of - GROUPS AND ENTITIES the LIST OF PERSONS, GROUPS AND ENTITIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1

• ‘Hamas’, including ‘Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem’
17. ‘Palestinian Islamic Jihad’ — ‘PIJ’.
18. ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’ — ‘PFLP’.
19. ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — General Command’ (a.k.a. ‘PFLP — General Command’).

(COMMENT)

HAMAS, as well as several other affiliated and associate activities and entities, are designed as terrorist.

You cannot supply SALW (or any weapons for that matter) to the Gaza Strip.

A review of HAMAS Policy is that reveals that: "Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights" is a open Policy of HAMAS. This liberation objective extends beyond the sovereignty over the territory occupied since 1967; a veiled by direct threat to the sovereign integrity to Israel. A policy, which has become an international and regional threat to Peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

What happened to the court decision to take Hamas off the list?

 

[Roudy]

But, do you see how it really DOES make a difference to how the 'situation' would be viewed by the rest of the world if it WASN'T Israel attacking Hamas but it was 'allied forces' responding to ANY attack against Israel?

Why is that, do you think? Why is it perceived to be "evil" and "hated" when Israel does it, but acceptable when someone else does the exact same thing?

I believe that, as Israel is classified as an 'occupier' by most of the world, any attack against those are 'occupied' is seen as simply wrong...

Occupier and attacker combined is not a good combination...

Now, you can argue that Israel does not occupy Gaza, you can argue that attacks against Israel are 'freedom fighters'.... But factually or conceptually, if you like, it remains that Israel does control air, land and sea of Gaza and attacks are carried out against Israel under the 'premise' of this fact...

You could say that Turkey attacking Kurds is "evil" yet the Kurds are attacking Turkey!

As I said previously, I really don't find any 'attacks' acceptable, however, IF it became necessary, I do believe that an 'allied force', on the ground, within Gaza, would be the better option...

Ha ha ha. Who should give give this "occupied" land back to?

Again, the land was Ottoman territory for the last 700 years, then British for a short period of time, and then for 20 years it was "occupied" by the Jordanians and the Egyptians after they failed attempt to destroy Israel, which at no time during these 20 years did ANYBODY speak of this mythical invented Palestine or Palestinian people. Instead the Arabs who never recognized a "Palestine" used this land they "occupied" for 20 years to attack Israel once again, only this time they got their butts kicked once more and lost the land as well.

So who exactly does Israel give this land back to? The Turks or the British? I don't think the Jordanians and Egyptians even want the land back. They prefer to point fingers at Israel for a problem they created.

If you bothered to read the thread Roodboy you would see it is in relation to Gaza...

As you know, despite Israel withdrawal in 2005, the international community still consider Gaza as occupied...

"...the United Nations, International human rights organisations, and the majority of governments and legal commentators consider the territory to be still occupied by Israel, supported by additional restrictions placed on Gaza by Egypt. Israel maintains direct external control over Gaza and indirect control over life within Gaza: it controls Gaza's air and maritime space, and six of Gaza's seven land crossings. It reserves the right to enter Gaza at will with its military and maintains a no-go buffer zone within the Gaza territory. Gaza is dependent on Israel for its water, electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities."

Yeah? So what do you want Israel to do? Perhaps the best thing would be for Gaza who are Egyptians anyhow, to be re-occupied and then annexed by the Egyptians, and the world would pitch in financially to the Egyptians for this. The Egyptians would know how to put a stop to IslamoNazi terrorism, trust me.

If that works then Israel would hand over an agreed smaller portion of the West Bank (with the Palestinians inside it) to the Jordanians, who will also be financed additionally for their added burden.

That's a perfect doable solution, you need to get the Jordanians and Egyptians, their Arab neighbors, and the rest of the world community on board. After all, it's the Jordanians and Egyptians that created this problem originally,mby occupying the West Bank and Gaza and putting the so called "Palestinians" in limbo in these miserable refugee camps for 20 years.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Challenger, et al,

It does not matter what they want to target, who controls what, or the reason, IT IS ILLEGAL under Security Council decisions.

Actually that's a fair point, if the Zionists do not control Gaza,as they claim, the Gazans should be able to purchase arms and equipment openly for self defence such as AA missiles or guidance equipment so they can actually target military sites without threatening civilians and import them likewise, it all depends on who wants to sell them the weapons.

(OBSERVATIONS)

Decides also that all States shall: (a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;
Source: S/RES/1373

Reaffirms its decision that States shall eliminate the supply of weapons, including small arms and light weapons (SALW), to terrorists, as well as its calls for States to find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational information regarding traffic in arms, and to enhance coordination of efforts on national, subregional, regional and international levels;
SOURCE: S/RES/2117 (2013)

General Court case: Hamas
In September 2010, Hamas brought its case before the General Court, challenging its continued presence on the EU terrorist list. In December 2014, the General Court annulled on procedural grounds the Council's decision to maintain Hamas on this list.
HOWEVER:
As of L 334/20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 22.12.2015 (updated accordingly and Decision (CFSP) 2015/1334), Annex of - GROUPS AND ENTITIES the LIST OF PERSONS, GROUPS AND ENTITIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1

• ‘Hamas’, including ‘Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem’
17. ‘Palestinian Islamic Jihad’ — ‘PIJ’.
18. ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’ — ‘PFLP’.
19. ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — General Command’ (a.k.a. ‘PFLP — General Command’).

(COMMENT)

HAMAS, as well as several other affiliated and associate activities and entities, are designed as terrorist.

You cannot supply SALW (or any weapons for that matter) to the Gaza Strip.

A review of HAMAS Policy is that reveals that: "Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights" is a open Policy of HAMAS. This liberation objective extends beyond the sovereignty over the territory occupied since 1967; a veiled by direct threat to the sovereign integrity to Israel. A policy, which has become an international and regional threat to Peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

The EU has no authority over other countries.

And besides, the EU listing process for Hamas, according to the court, was bogus as I believe it was in the US as well.

 

[Shusha]

Now, you can argue that Israel does not occupy Gaza, you can argue that attacks against Israel are 'freedom fighters'.... But factually or conceptually, if you like, it remains that Israel does control air, land and sea of Gaza and attacks are carried out against Israel under the 'premise' of this fact...

Actually, I would argue that not only does Israel not occupy Gaza, but that the meaning of the term "occupy" has actually been changed in order to continue to demonize Israel.

Israel does not control one square foot of land in Gaza. (Proof of this is the ability of Gazans to build tunnels, import and store weapons (in schools!), attack Israel, subvert material for belligerent acts, etc.) Neither does Israel entirely control Gaza's sea.

What Israel does (try) to control, through embargos and blockades, is the borders of Gaza specifically for the purpose of preventing the entry of certain types of weapons and material into Gaza. This is outside the traditional meaning of "occupy".

So, I believe that while this is the perception of much of the (uneducated) world about Israel -- it is not the truth. And further, anything which supports that perception, including supporting the idea that Israel has no right to defend itself, or should not defend itself and that it should be left to an international force, further entrenches the idea that Israel is a "special case". I think it would be far more beneficial to adjust the perception of the world that Israel is acting entirely appropriately (as you agree to, since you permit the international military to act with the same, or higher, level of force).

 

[Daniyel]

"...One can definitely say this... It's not boring here. Ohh, it's not. But not only it isn't boring. It's irritating. It's irritating to wake up in the morning after such brutal murder of innocent people sitting in a restaurant, and to hear AGAIN... all those 'wise' world spokesmen, on television and radio, who explain that this happens to us... because of us.

Yeah. It's our fault.

4 were killed in central Tel Aviv, but the culprits... are us.

I really need a good doctor to diagnose this illness, which makes us believe that no matter what our enemies do... it's always our fault.

Have you ever heard of innocent murder victims who are culprits of their own blood being spilled?

Only here this thinking is possible.

Furthermore, The European representative said that there's a direct line between the Europe terror attacks and our "occupation" and "oppression" here.

In England, an officer is slaughtered for being a disbeliever, the Israeli occupation is at fault... In Paris, dozens are butchered in a concert hall for being infidels, in that, also, the Israeli occupation is at fault... and the world is quiet.

And why it is our fault? Because there's no negotiation. Why are we the responsible ones? because the Arabs have no 'political horizon'... Why is Israel to blame? because the Arab have no hope.

Why we're the guilty ones? because of the occupation.

Simple.

The occupation.

So they're desperate and sad. And common sense says that, when you're desperate and sad and with no hope for the future, you go on a killing spree at a crowded restaurant. That's it. What's more simple than that?

We occupy them, we took their sky above, be blockade them... what is there for them to do? Oh, the occupation! the root of all evil!

Because if there was NO occupation (sarcastic laugh), if that was not an issue, can you imagine the heaven we would have had here? Paradise, Monte Carlo, Switzerland! We would have had skiing trips on Be'er Sheva's mountains. We would have had the Sahara race on mount Hermon.

What a wonderful world we would have had, if only there was no occupation.

Like the one we used to have here before the occupation! In times the Arabs had open skies, no blockade, open horizon to create not only one state, but multiple states, who would have spread all over Judea, Samaria, Hebron and Gaza.

It was all theirs, in case you forgot. Oy, they had beautiful horizons back then.

And even back then, before said occupation, years 1948-1950, it was so wonderful here. When this state, who was just born out of fire and had to deal with the risk of being destroyed and attack constantly, They used to, then, in case you don't remember, write down the names of Jewish drivers passing by the roads of Israel, in case they have to identify their bodies once their vehicles are attacked and set on fire.

Those years were of high risk to the state which just fought for independence, which had to deal with thousands of refugees who escaped a previous genocide in Europe, a genocide the Arabs wished to continue here, in this very homeland.

They wanted back then, before the "occupation", to put a tragic final to the Jewish dream, and bring forth the demise of their new independent state.

Out of those thousand cases of pre-occupation, let us recall just a few. On February 1951, an 8 year old Israeli girl was raped and murdered, in her house at Katamon neighborhood in Jerusalem. December 31st, 1952, Palestinians raped and murdered a 18 year old girl, and hid her body in a cave. January 1st, 1952, seven armed Palestinians attacked and killed a 19 year old girl in 'Beit Israel' neighborhood in Jerusalem...

Year 1953, before we occupied any of Judea, Samaria, or Gaza, One Israeli man was murdered and three others injured in a shooting incident in southern Jerusalem. June 9th, a village near Lod was attacked by Paleastinians, who used mortars and live ammunition on the innocent residents, killing one and injuring many others.

That same night, a group of terrorists attacked a house in Hadera, and another set a house on fire in Ayalon town.

June 11th, 1953, terrorists attacked a young couple in Hess village, murdering them both.

All of that was before the occupation, they had hopes and horizons, so why... Why on June 3rd, 1953, Palestinians invaded the Katamon neighborhood, the beating heart of Jerusalem, and opened fire at passersby? why on October 13th, 1953, Palestinians murdered a mother and two of her children? A 3 year old girl and a 1 year old boy, who were murdered in their sleep.

Why on March 17th, a group of terrorists ambushed a civilian buss driving from Eilat to Tel Aviv, shot at it from close range, entered the bus, shot all of the passengers, 11 people were killed- men, women, children? why?

April 11th, 1956, a Palestinian group invaded the village of ultra-orthodox Jews of Chabad, they attacked the agricultural school with mortar shells and live-fire, killing 4 children and a teacher. The children's blood slpashed to stain their Torah and prayer books.

That same day and same place, they also attacked a synagogue filled with children. 5 children and youth worker were murdered.

During August, 1956, at least 10 Jews were brutally murdered by Palestinian terrorists.

And it continues. The list is long and tiring, and it's all before the occupation, before 1967, the "occupation" doesn't even exist in future plans, so why?

For years, the terror organization of PLO, Ashaf, Fada'iyun tried to bring an end to the Jewish state, to spill it's blood through shots, mortar firing, launchings, bombings, damaging and killing.

It didn't begin in 1967. It did not begin in 1948, either.

Aaron Hershfeld, a Yeshiva student, was murdered on January, 1873, by a Palestinian terrorist group.

So this is the answer to what happened in Tel Aviv. They kill us they have no furur dreams. But why don't we listen to their voices? They tell us clearly- their dreams is to see us gone! with, or without occupation!"

-Yehoram Ga'on, June 9th, 2016

That's a real shame Lipush...

Your post is bordering on hysterical rather than dealing with the subject of the thread...

I had hoped that you may have made sensible comment rather than taking the 'Zionist victimhood' route!

Or simply an attempt to derail the thread as having a prominent political Israeli stating that the occupation by Israel is a cause for Palestinian terrorism does NOT fit in with the Zionist mantra!

The Palestinians say day and night long they want to destroy Israel...

There were THOUSANDS of cases of terrorism before the occupation..

Yes, my post is "hysterical".

I'm curious on how your mind works?


Buttom line is- it's not because of any occupation. It never was. If it was the pure reason, you wouldn't have heard of our enemies attacking and killing Jews abroad, or killing us before the "occupation"

How my mind works?

Simple...

End the occupation...

End the blockade on Gaza...

'Free' the Palestinians...

Once that happens... IF Palestinian aggression continues then I support Israel to blow the shit out of ANY terrorist that chooses to attack it!

It's THAT simple... That's how MY mind works!

Please, PLEASE, don't tell me that it is "necessary" to maintain the occupation and blockade for "security" reasons...

Israel has MORE than enough firepower to destroy ANYTHING that Hamas/PA can throw at it! That has been proven... Israel also has the aggression to do so... That has also been proven!

Let me ask you... How long do you think it would take for Israel to, for example, overthrow Hamas, destroy Gaza and continue its "Greater Israel" plans?

I have an idea of how long that would take, but I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts on that!

I Think you are wrong from the very essence of that thought.
One must never submit or compromise to violence and extortions, it is a very slippery slop to self destruction.

A little off topic, but you have a interesting signature picture - what does it symbolize?

I Owe you an answer, sorry for bumping this up thou.
I Don't really know what the artist had in mind but the way I see it is as Israelis and Palestinians choose to lock a mutual (and wonderful) future together..holding the doors with a rusty lock..

 

[Phoenall]

Why is that, do you think? Why is it perceived to be "evil" and "hated" when Israel does it, but acceptable when someone else does the exact same thing?

I believe that, as Israel is classified as an 'occupier' by most of the world, any attack against those are 'occupied' is seen as simply wrong...

Occupier and attacker combined is not a good combination...

Now, you can argue that Israel does not occupy Gaza, you can argue that attacks against Israel are 'freedom fighters'.... But factually or conceptually, if you like, it remains that Israel does control air, land and sea of Gaza and attacks are carried out against Israel under the 'premise' of this fact...

You could say that Turkey attacking Kurds is "evil" yet the Kurds are attacking Turkey!

As I said previously, I really don't find any 'attacks' acceptable, however, IF it became necessary, I do believe that an 'allied force', on the ground, within Gaza, would be the better option...

Right up until hamas demand the UN remove the troops under the terms of the UN charter, and then we are back to illegal weapons being destroyed by concerted attacks.

WRONG...

In any 'agreement' on these terms there would be NO possibility of Hamas demanding the removal of allied forces...

Not even without re-writing the UN charter and many thousands of UN resolutions that says this is a right for all people

Wrong Phoney...

There is NOTHING to stop Israel and Gaza drawing up an agreement that works for everyone...

That is not what you said, so why change the rules half way through. You said the enforcement of the treaty was to be by International force and not by a deal between Israel and hamas. It was to be an unnegotiated unilateral move by Israel. Cant you read your own posts ?

 

[Phoenall]

Challenger, et al,

No, it is me (obviously) not being clear to you. (I was assigned to SHAPE (Mons BE) for 4 years; and the EUSA/USF-K (Seoul, KR) for 4 four years. What is obvious to me is not always obvious to others.) I've also had the opportunity to support ISAF (Kabul, AF).

Challenger, et al,

NO. ----

(COMMENT)

There is no UN influence over SHAPE.

V/R
R

Either I'm not making myself clear or you are being particularly obtuse. I'll try again. The U.N. can authorize the military forces of designated U.N. members to perform a set mission under UN auspices. Such assets can include ground, air or naval elements; i.e. fighting piracy in Somalia, or the Korean war(!)

(COMMENT)

The UN can say or do anything it wants; or authorize anything is wants. The North Atlantic Council (NAC) is the principal political decision-making body within NATO. Any individual nation may independently offer assistance to the UN. But no UN decision can compel the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee's (CMC) to take any action. The CMC's authority stems from the NATO Military Committee the the NATO Ruling body NAC (under Article 9).

You may not understand the controversy with the UN association in the Korean War. There are four principle Article VII Security Council resolutions relative to the Korean War:

• SC 82 (V)-S/1501 on June 25 1950

• SC 83 (V)-S/1511 on June 27 1950

• SC 84 (V)-S/1588 on July 7, 1950

• SC 85 (V)-S/1657 July 31, 1950
​

(CLARIFICATIONS)

The UN SC Resolutions 84/85 establish the entity known as “Unified Command” (which General of the Army Douglas MacArthur took Command). A "unified Command" is a command composed of combatant forces from two or more allied nations. The language of the resolution says that the Security Council, “Recommends that all members providing forces and other assistance pursuant to the aforesaid Security Council resolution make such forces and other assistance available to a Unified Command under the United States of America.” Any Allied Force contribution was actually under the US Unified Command. The USFK was not established until 1 July 1957. There is an argument if the UN actually had a UN Command there.

The UN Operations Somalia (UNOSOM) is not quite the same thing as Combatant Commands Forces. On 24 April 1992, the Security Council adopted resolution 751(1992), establishing UNOSOM I; a 50 unarmed but uniformed United Nations military observers. USSOM II was an incomplete mission under United Nations Security Council Resolution 794, terminated by the US. While UNOSOM II was a combatant Unified Command; it was a force by contribution. "By October 1993 UNOSOM II consisted of over 16,000 peacekeepers from 21 nations. This number would jump to 29,732 soldiers from 29 nations by mid-November with the arrival of over 17,000 additional U.S. personnel as part of a U.S. joint task force." --- "It was the first attempt by the international community to deal with a new post-Cold War phenomenon referred to as the “failed nation state.” It was also the first attempt by the United Nations to execute a Chapter VII peace enforcement operation to execute the parameters of Security Council mandates. However, the “failed state” appears not to be a phenomenon but a trend for the near future." (Source: United States Forces, Somalia After Action Report)

The EU Contribution you see pictured are NOT under a UN Command. They are operating under their national authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

So what? My point was that there is nothing to stop member countries of the U.N. contributing naval assets to an anti-smuggling operation; the mechanics of how that's done is frankly irrelevant to the point.

Smuggling?

What laws are the Palestinians violating by importing weapons?

Actually that's a fair point, if the Zionists do not control Gaza,as they claim, the Gazans should be able to purchase arms and equipment openly for self defence such as AA missiles or guidance equipment so they can actually target military sites without threatening civilians and import them likewise, it all depends on who wants to sell them the weapons.

Now where does it say that ? and who are these Zionists you come up with are they a new country that only exists in your fantasy world.

Israel does control the air sea and land routs into and out of gaza so can say what they will allow to pass under the terms of International laws.

The terrorists can try buying those weapons and see where it gets them with the UN

 

[Phoenall]

Challenger, et al,

No, it is me (obviously) not being clear to you. (I was assigned to SHAPE (Mons BE) for 4 years; and the EUSA/USF-K (Seoul, KR) for 4 four years. What is obvious to me is not always obvious to others.) I've also had the opportunity to support ISAF (Kabul, AF).

Either I'm not making myself clear or you are being particularly obtuse. I'll try again. The U.N. can authorize the military forces of designated U.N. members to perform a set mission under UN auspices. Such assets can include ground, air or naval elements; i.e. fighting piracy in Somalia, or the Korean war(!)

(COMMENT)

The UN can say or do anything it wants; or authorize anything is wants. The North Atlantic Council (NAC) is the principal political decision-making body within NATO. Any individual nation may independently offer assistance to the UN. But no UN decision can compel the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee's (CMC) to take any action. The CMC's authority stems from the NATO Military Committee the the NATO Ruling body NAC (under Article 9).

You may not understand the controversy with the UN association in the Korean War. There are four principle Article VII Security Council resolutions relative to the Korean War:

• SC 82 (V)-S/1501 on June 25 1950

• SC 83 (V)-S/1511 on June 27 1950

• SC 84 (V)-S/1588 on July 7, 1950

• SC 85 (V)-S/1657 July 31, 1950
​

(CLARIFICATIONS)

The UN SC Resolutions 84/85 establish the entity known as “Unified Command” (which General of the Army Douglas MacArthur took Command). A "unified Command" is a command composed of combatant forces from two or more allied nations. The language of the resolution says that the Security Council, “Recommends that all members providing forces and other assistance pursuant to the aforesaid Security Council resolution make such forces and other assistance available to a Unified Command under the United States of America.” Any Allied Force contribution was actually under the US Unified Command. The USFK was not established until 1 July 1957. There is an argument if the UN actually had a UN Command there.

The UN Operations Somalia (UNOSOM) is not quite the same thing as Combatant Commands Forces. On 24 April 1992, the Security Council adopted resolution 751(1992), establishing UNOSOM I; a 50 unarmed but uniformed United Nations military observers. USSOM II was an incomplete mission under United Nations Security Council Resolution 794, terminated by the US. While UNOSOM II was a combatant Unified Command; it was a force by contribution. "By October 1993 UNOSOM II consisted of over 16,000 peacekeepers from 21 nations. This number would jump to 29,732 soldiers from 29 nations by mid-November with the arrival of over 17,000 additional U.S. personnel as part of a U.S. joint task force." --- "It was the first attempt by the international community to deal with a new post-Cold War phenomenon referred to as the “failed nation state.” It was also the first attempt by the United Nations to execute a Chapter VII peace enforcement operation to execute the parameters of Security Council mandates. However, the “failed state” appears not to be a phenomenon but a trend for the near future." (Source: United States Forces, Somalia After Action Report)

The EU Contribution you see pictured are NOT under a UN Command. They are operating under their national authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

So what? My point was that there is nothing to stop member countries of the U.N. contributing naval assets to an anti-smuggling operation; the mechanics of how that's done is frankly irrelevant to the point.

Smuggling?

What laws are the Palestinians violating by importing weapons?

The UN charter for 10 or so, as that spells it out. Then the Geneva conventions and IHL. All detailed in full previously and you ignored them then as you will now because they destroy your POV

Where?

Links?

Charter of the United Nations | United Nations


ICRC service

 

[Phoenall]

But, do you see how it really DOES make a difference to how the 'situation' would be viewed by the rest of the world if it WASN'T Israel attacking Hamas but it was 'allied forces' responding to ANY attack against Israel?

Why is that, do you think? Why is it perceived to be "evil" and "hated" when Israel does it, but acceptable when someone else does the exact same thing?

I believe that, as Israel is classified as an 'occupier' by most of the world, any attack against those are 'occupied' is seen as simply wrong...

Occupier and attacker combined is not a good combination...

Now, you can argue that Israel does not occupy Gaza, you can argue that attacks against Israel are 'freedom fighters'.... But factually or conceptually, if you like, it remains that Israel does control air, land and sea of Gaza and attacks are carried out against Israel under the 'premise' of this fact...

You could say that Turkey attacking Kurds is "evil" yet the Kurds are attacking Turkey!

As I said previously, I really don't find any 'attacks' acceptable, however, IF it became necessary, I do believe that an 'allied force', on the ground, within Gaza, would be the better option...

Ha ha ha. Who should give give this "occupied" land back to?

Again, the land was Ottoman territory for the last 700 years, then British for a short period of time, and then for 20 years it was "occupied" by the Jordanians and the Egyptians after they failed attempt to destroy Israel, which at no time during these 20 years did ANYBODY speak of this mythical invented Palestine or Palestinian people. Instead the Arabs who never recognized a "Palestine" used this land they "occupied" for 20 years to attack Israel once again, only this time they got their butts kicked once more and lost the land as well.

So who exactly does Israel give this land back to? The Turks or the British? I don't think the Jordanians and Egyptians even want the land back. They prefer to point fingers at Israel for a problem they created.

If you bothered to read the thread Roodboy you would see it is in relation to Gaza...

As you know, despite Israel withdrawal in 2005, the international community still consider Gaza as occupied...

"...the United Nations, International human rights organisations, and the majority of governments and legal commentators consider the territory to be still occupied by Israel, supported by additional restrictions placed on Gaza by Egypt. Israel maintains direct external control over Gaza and indirect control over life within Gaza: it controls Gaza's air and maritime space, and six of Gaza's seven land crossings. It reserves the right to enter Gaza at will with its military and maintains a no-go buffer zone within the Gaza territory. Gaza is dependent on Israel for its water, electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities."

That is certain individuals words and not the worlds views at all. The relevant international law states that Israel does not occupy gaza and has not since 2005

 

[Phoenall]

Challenger, et al,

It does not matter what they want to target, who controls what, or the reason, IT IS ILLEGAL under Security Council decisions.

Actually that's a fair point, if the Zionists do not control Gaza,as they claim, the Gazans should be able to purchase arms and equipment openly for self defence such as AA missiles or guidance equipment so they can actually target military sites without threatening civilians and import them likewise, it all depends on who wants to sell them the weapons.

(OBSERVATIONS)

Decides also that all States shall: (a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;
Source: S/RES/1373

Reaffirms its decision that States shall eliminate the supply of weapons, including small arms and light weapons (SALW), to terrorists, as well as its calls for States to find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational information regarding traffic in arms, and to enhance coordination of efforts on national, subregional, regional and international levels;
SOURCE: S/RES/2117 (2013)

General Court case: Hamas
In September 2010, Hamas brought its case before the General Court, challenging its continued presence on the EU terrorist list. In December 2014, the General Court annulled on procedural grounds the Council's decision to maintain Hamas on this list.
HOWEVER:
As of L 334/20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 22.12.2015 (updated accordingly and Decision (CFSP) 2015/1334), Annex of - GROUPS AND ENTITIES the LIST OF PERSONS, GROUPS AND ENTITIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1

• ‘Hamas’, including ‘Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem’
17. ‘Palestinian Islamic Jihad’ — ‘PIJ’.
18. ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’ — ‘PFLP’.
19. ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — General Command’ (a.k.a. ‘PFLP — General Command’).

(COMMENT)

HAMAS, as well as several other affiliated and associate activities and entities, are designed as terrorist.

You cannot supply SALW (or any weapons for that matter) to the Gaza Strip.

A review of HAMAS Policy is that reveals that: "Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights" is a open Policy of HAMAS. This liberation objective extends beyond the sovereignty over the territory occupied since 1967; a veiled by direct threat to the sovereign integrity to Israel. A policy, which has become an international and regional threat to Peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

What happened to the court decision to take Hamas off the list?

Cant you read

As of L 334/20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 22.12.2015 (updated accordingly and Decision (CFSP) 2015/1334), Annex of - GROUPS AND ENTITIES the LIST OF PERSONS, GROUPS AND ENTITIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1

• ‘Hamas’, including ‘Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem’
17. ‘Palestinian Islamic Jihad’ — ‘PIJ’.
18. ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’ — ‘PFLP’.
19. ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — General Command’ (a.k.a. ‘PFLP — General Command’).

In other words they are back on the terrorist list and will remain so until they cease to exist

 

[Phoenall]

Challenger, et al,

It does not matter what they want to target, who controls what, or the reason, IT IS ILLEGAL under Security Council decisions.

Actually that's a fair point, if the Zionists do not control Gaza,as they claim, the Gazans should be able to purchase arms and equipment openly for self defence such as AA missiles or guidance equipment so they can actually target military sites without threatening civilians and import them likewise, it all depends on who wants to sell them the weapons.

(OBSERVATIONS)

Decides also that all States shall: (a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;
Source: S/RES/1373

Reaffirms its decision that States shall eliminate the supply of weapons, including small arms and light weapons (SALW), to terrorists, as well as its calls for States to find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational information regarding traffic in arms, and to enhance coordination of efforts on national, subregional, regional and international levels;
SOURCE: S/RES/2117 (2013)

General Court case: Hamas
In September 2010, Hamas brought its case before the General Court, challenging its continued presence on the EU terrorist list. In December 2014, the General Court annulled on procedural grounds the Council's decision to maintain Hamas on this list.
HOWEVER:
As of L 334/20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 22.12.2015 (updated accordingly and Decision (CFSP) 2015/1334), Annex of - GROUPS AND ENTITIES the LIST OF PERSONS, GROUPS AND ENTITIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1

• ‘Hamas’, including ‘Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem’
17. ‘Palestinian Islamic Jihad’ — ‘PIJ’.
18. ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’ — ‘PFLP’.
19. ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — General Command’ (a.k.a. ‘PFLP — General Command’).

(COMMENT)

HAMAS, as well as several other affiliated and associate activities and entities, are designed as terrorist.

You cannot supply SALW (or any weapons for that matter) to the Gaza Strip.

A review of HAMAS Policy is that reveals that: "Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights" is a open Policy of HAMAS. This liberation objective extends beyond the sovereignty over the territory occupied since 1967; a veiled by direct threat to the sovereign integrity to Israel. A policy, which has become an international and regional threat to Peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

The EU has no authority over other countries.

And besides, the EU listing process for Hamas, according to the court, was bogus as I believe it was in the US as well.

TRUE up to a point. But they can refuse to deal with them through the government legislation and make them suffer legally. As in BDS


LINK as the court put it straight back on the list of terrorists.

 

[Roudy]

Challenger, et al,

It does not matter what they want to target, who controls what, or the reason, IT IS ILLEGAL under Security Council decisions.

Actually that's a fair point, if the Zionists do not control Gaza,as they claim, the Gazans should be able to purchase arms and equipment openly for self defence such as AA missiles or guidance equipment so they can actually target military sites without threatening civilians and import them likewise, it all depends on who wants to sell them the weapons.

(OBSERVATIONS)

Decides also that all States shall: (a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;
Source: S/RES/1373

Reaffirms its decision that States shall eliminate the supply of weapons, including small arms and light weapons (SALW), to terrorists, as well as its calls for States to find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational information regarding traffic in arms, and to enhance coordination of efforts on national, subregional, regional and international levels;
SOURCE: S/RES/2117 (2013)

General Court case: Hamas
In September 2010, Hamas brought its case before the General Court, challenging its continued presence on the EU terrorist list. In December 2014, the General Court annulled on procedural grounds the Council's decision to maintain Hamas on this list.
HOWEVER:
As of L 334/20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 22.12.2015 (updated accordingly and Decision (CFSP) 2015/1334), Annex of - GROUPS AND ENTITIES the LIST OF PERSONS, GROUPS AND ENTITIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1

• ‘Hamas’, including ‘Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem’
17. ‘Palestinian Islamic Jihad’ — ‘PIJ’.
18. ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’ — ‘PFLP’.
19. ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — General Command’ (a.k.a. ‘PFLP — General Command’).

(COMMENT)

HAMAS, as well as several other affiliated and associate activities and entities, are designed as terrorist.

You cannot supply SALW (or any weapons for that matter) to the Gaza Strip.

A review of HAMAS Policy is that reveals that: "Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights" is a open Policy of HAMAS. This liberation objective extends beyond the sovereignty over the territory occupied since 1967; a veiled by direct threat to the sovereign integrity to Israel. A policy, which has become an international and regional threat to Peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

What happened to the court decision to take Hamas off the list?

Cant you read

As of L 334/20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 22.12.2015 (updated accordingly and Decision (CFSP) 2015/1334), Annex of - GROUPS AND ENTITIES the LIST OF PERSONS, GROUPS AND ENTITIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1

• ‘Hamas’, including ‘Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem’
17. ‘Palestinian Islamic Jihad’ — ‘PIJ’.
18. ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’ — ‘PFLP’.
19. ‘Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — General Command’ (a.k.a. ‘PFLP — General Command’).

In other words they are back on the terrorist list and will remain so until they cease to exist

Ouch, that's gonna hurt.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Challenger, et al,

No, it is me (obviously) not being clear to you. (I was assigned to SHAPE (Mons BE) for 4 years; and the EUSA/USF-K (Seoul, KR) for 4 four years. What is obvious to me is not always obvious to others.) I've also had the opportunity to support ISAF (Kabul, AF).

(COMMENT)

The UN can say or do anything it wants; or authorize anything is wants. The North Atlantic Council (NAC) is the principal political decision-making body within NATO. Any individual nation may independently offer assistance to the UN. But no UN decision can compel the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee's (CMC) to take any action. The CMC's authority stems from the NATO Military Committee the the NATO Ruling body NAC (under Article 9).

You may not understand the controversy with the UN association in the Korean War. There are four principle Article VII Security Council resolutions relative to the Korean War:

• SC 82 (V)-S/1501 on June 25 1950

• SC 83 (V)-S/1511 on June 27 1950

• SC 84 (V)-S/1588 on July 7, 1950

• SC 85 (V)-S/1657 July 31, 1950
​

(CLARIFICATIONS)

The UN SC Resolutions 84/85 establish the entity known as “Unified Command” (which General of the Army Douglas MacArthur took Command). A "unified Command" is a command composed of combatant forces from two or more allied nations. The language of the resolution says that the Security Council, “Recommends that all members providing forces and other assistance pursuant to the aforesaid Security Council resolution make such forces and other assistance available to a Unified Command under the United States of America.” Any Allied Force contribution was actually under the US Unified Command. The USFK was not established until 1 July 1957. There is an argument if the UN actually had a UN Command there.

The UN Operations Somalia (UNOSOM) is not quite the same thing as Combatant Commands Forces. On 24 April 1992, the Security Council adopted resolution 751(1992), establishing UNOSOM I; a 50 unarmed but uniformed United Nations military observers. USSOM II was an incomplete mission under United Nations Security Council Resolution 794, terminated by the US. While UNOSOM II was a combatant Unified Command; it was a force by contribution. "By October 1993 UNOSOM II consisted of over 16,000 peacekeepers from 21 nations. This number would jump to 29,732 soldiers from 29 nations by mid-November with the arrival of over 17,000 additional U.S. personnel as part of a U.S. joint task force." --- "It was the first attempt by the international community to deal with a new post-Cold War phenomenon referred to as the “failed nation state.” It was also the first attempt by the United Nations to execute a Chapter VII peace enforcement operation to execute the parameters of Security Council mandates. However, the “failed state” appears not to be a phenomenon but a trend for the near future." (Source: United States Forces, Somalia After Action Report)

The EU Contribution you see pictured are NOT under a UN Command. They are operating under their national authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

So what? My point was that there is nothing to stop member countries of the U.N. contributing naval assets to an anti-smuggling operation; the mechanics of how that's done is frankly irrelevant to the point.

Smuggling?

What laws are the Palestinians violating by importing weapons?

The UN charter for 10 or so, as that spells it out. Then the Geneva conventions and IHL. All detailed in full previously and you ignored them then as you will now because they destroy your POV

Where?

Links?

Charter of the United Nations | United Nations


ICRC service

I've already read them. Where do they say what you say?

 

[Humanity]

Gaza who are Egyptians anyhow

You mean like the Jews...

Roodboy, join the adult conversation, drop the propaganda or move to the kindergarten forum...

Your constant derailing of threads, posting off topic comments is boring... Join the debate as an adult or piss off!

 

[Humanity]

But, do you see how it really DOES make a difference to how the 'situation' would be viewed by the rest of the world if it WASN'T Israel attacking Hamas but it was 'allied forces' responding to ANY attack against Israel?

Why is that, do you think? Why is it perceived to be "evil" and "hated" when Israel does it, but acceptable when someone else does the exact same thing?

I believe that, as Israel is classified as an 'occupier' by most of the world, any attack against those are 'occupied' is seen as simply wrong...

Occupier and attacker combined is not a good combination...

Now, you can argue that Israel does not occupy Gaza, you can argue that attacks against Israel are 'freedom fighters'.... But factually or conceptually, if you like, it remains that Israel does control air, land and sea of Gaza and attacks are carried out against Israel under the 'premise' of this fact...

You could say that Turkey attacking Kurds is "evil" yet the Kurds are attacking Turkey!

As I said previously, I really don't find any 'attacks' acceptable, however, IF it became necessary, I do believe that an 'allied force', on the ground, within Gaza, would be the better option...

Ha ha ha. Who should give give this "occupied" land back to?

Again, the land was Ottoman territory for the last 700 years, then British for a short period of time, and then for 20 years it was "occupied" by the Jordanians and the Egyptians after they failed attempt to destroy Israel, which at no time during these 20 years did ANYBODY speak of this mythical invented Palestine or Palestinian people. Instead the Arabs who never recognized a "Palestine" used this land they "occupied" for 20 years to attack Israel once again, only this time they got their butts kicked once more and lost the land as well.

So who exactly does Israel give this land back to? The Turks or the British? I don't think the Jordanians and Egyptians even want the land back. They prefer to point fingers at Israel for a problem they created.

If you bothered to read the thread Roodboy you would see it is in relation to Gaza...

As you know, despite Israel withdrawal in 2005, the international community still consider Gaza as occupied...

"...the United Nations, International human rights organisations, and the majority of governments and legal commentators consider the territory to be still occupied by Israel, supported by additional restrictions placed on Gaza by Egypt. Israel maintains direct external control over Gaza and indirect control over life within Gaza: it controls Gaza's air and maritime space, and six of Gaza's seven land crossings. It reserves the right to enter Gaza at will with its military and maintains a no-go buffer zone within the Gaza territory. Gaza is dependent on Israel for its water, electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities."

That is certain individuals words and not the worlds views at all. The relevant international law states that Israel does not occupy gaza and has not since 2005

Certain "individuals words" that carry far more weight than YOUR bleatings...

Care to provide any links to your statement that "The relevant international law states that Israel does not occupy gaza" or is everyone expected to just accept your word for it?

 

[Humanity]

Now, you can argue that Israel does not occupy Gaza, you can argue that attacks against Israel are 'freedom fighters'.... But factually or conceptually, if you like, it remains that Israel does control air, land and sea of Gaza and attacks are carried out against Israel under the 'premise' of this fact...

Actually, I would argue that not only does Israel not occupy Gaza, but that the meaning of the term "occupy" has actually been changed in order to continue to demonize Israel.

Israel does not control one square foot of land in Gaza. (Proof of this is the ability of Gazans to build tunnels, import and store weapons (in schools!), attack Israel, subvert material for belligerent acts, etc.) Neither does Israel entirely control Gaza's sea.

What Israel does (try) to control, through embargos and blockades, is the borders of Gaza specifically for the purpose of preventing the entry of certain types of weapons and material into Gaza. This is outside the traditional meaning of "occupy".

So, I believe that while this is the perception of much of the (uneducated) world about Israel -- it is not the truth. And further, anything which supports that perception, including supporting the idea that Israel has no right to defend itself, or should not defend itself and that it should be left to an international force, further entrenches the idea that Israel is a "special case". I think it would be far more beneficial to adjust the perception of the world that Israel is acting entirely appropriately (as you agree to, since you permit the international military to act with the same, or higher, level of force).

Firstly Shusha... I would like to say how nice it is to have a proper discussion/debate with someone with some intelligence, rather than the trolls that lurk around this forum, bleating with nonsensical garbage!

The word "occupy", I agree, can be used to demonise Israel... I cannot argue with that... However, when you look at the facts, Israel really DOES wave a heavy hand over Gaza... That you cannot deny... To the extent that Israel does have total control over Gaza, an independant state, who SHOULD have unilateral control of their own statehood...

However, Gaza does not have that 'status'... There is no free movement or trade within Gaza... Unless Israel says so! That is why Gaza is considered "occupied"...

The control/embargoes/blockades is exactly why Israel is considered an "occupier"... Yes, in the eyes of ISRAEL, there is a 'need'... That is not as perceived by the rest of the world...

I love your use of "perception of much of the (uneducated) world about Israel", without heading down the "hate" road, why do you feel that much of the world is uneducated in comparison to Israel?

Israel has every right to defend itself against terrorist attacks, in the same way that EVERY nation has the right to defend itself.... No arguement from me on that one...

If you looked at my previous posts you would see that I do consider Israel a "special case"...

As a "special case" there needs to be "special" considerations that should be implemented by allied forces and NOT by the oft demonized forces of Israel...

Israel exists, long live Israel... Gaza exists, long live Gaza...

Do I believe that the leaders of either state have "good intentions".... NO!

That is why I believe a 3rd party is required to intervene and make a powerful step in between the two 'belligerent' states..

Just my open, honest thoughts... I'm not defending Hamas, nor am I defending , and I use this term loosely, the Likud party...

 

[Humanity]

I believe that, as Israel is classified as an 'occupier' by most of the world, any attack against those are 'occupied' is seen as simply wrong...

Occupier and attacker combined is not a good combination...

Now, you can argue that Israel does not occupy Gaza, you can argue that attacks against Israel are 'freedom fighters'.... But factually or conceptually, if you like, it remains that Israel does control air, land and sea of Gaza and attacks are carried out against Israel under the 'premise' of this fact...

You could say that Turkey attacking Kurds is "evil" yet the Kurds are attacking Turkey!

As I said previously, I really don't find any 'attacks' acceptable, however, IF it became necessary, I do believe that an 'allied force', on the ground, within Gaza, would be the better option...

Right up until hamas demand the UN remove the troops under the terms of the UN charter, and then we are back to illegal weapons being destroyed by concerted attacks.

WRONG...

In any 'agreement' on these terms there would be NO possibility of Hamas demanding the removal of allied forces...

Not even without re-writing the UN charter and many thousands of UN resolutions that says this is a right for all people

Wrong Phoney...

There is NOTHING to stop Israel and Gaza drawing up an agreement that works for everyone...

That is not what you said, so why change the rules half way through. You said the enforcement of the treaty was to be by International force and not by a deal between Israel and hamas. It was to be an unnegotiated unilateral move by Israel. Cant you read your own posts ?

Oh I'm sorry Phoney...

Sorry that your bigoted, racist hatred mind is incapable of even basic thought...

Please do go and read my posts, and the intelligent posts of others, once you have grasped even the most basic of comprehension of this thread, then please do come back, when you feel ready, and comment...

Until such time, take your blind zionut, neo marxist racism somewhere else, there's a good chap!

 

[Indeependent]

Now, you can argue that Israel does not occupy Gaza, you can argue that attacks against Israel are 'freedom fighters'.... But factually or conceptually, if you like, it remains that Israel does control air, land and sea of Gaza and attacks are carried out against Israel under the 'premise' of this fact...

Actually, I would argue that not only does Israel not occupy Gaza, but that the meaning of the term "occupy" has actually been changed in order to continue to demonize Israel.

Israel does not control one square foot of land in Gaza. (Proof of this is the ability of Gazans to build tunnels, import and store weapons (in schools!), attack Israel, subvert material for belligerent acts, etc.) Neither does Israel entirely control Gaza's sea.

What Israel does (try) to control, through embargos and blockades, is the borders of Gaza specifically for the purpose of preventing the entry of certain types of weapons and material into Gaza. This is outside the traditional meaning of "occupy".

So, I believe that while this is the perception of much of the (uneducated) world about Israel -- it is not the truth. And further, anything which supports that perception, including supporting the idea that Israel has no right to defend itself, or should not defend itself and that it should be left to an international force, further entrenches the idea that Israel is a "special case". I think it would be far more beneficial to adjust the perception of the world that Israel is acting entirely appropriately (as you agree to, since you permit the international military to act with the same, or higher, level of force).

Firstly Shusha... I would like to say how nice it is to have a proper discussion/debate with someone with some intelligence, rather than the trolls that lurk around this forum, bleating with nonsensical garbage!

The word "occupy", I agree, can be used to demonise Israel... I cannot argue with that... However, when you look at the facts, Israel really DOES wave a heavy hand over Gaza... That you cannot deny... To the extent that Israel does have total control over Gaza, an independant state, who SHOULD have unilateral control of their own statehood...

However, Gaza does not have that 'status'... There is no free movement or trade within Gaza... Unless Israel says so! That is why Gaza is considered "occupied"...

The control/embargoes/blockades is exactly why Israel is considered an "occupier"... Yes, in the eyes of ISRAEL, there is a 'need'... That is not as perceived by the rest of the world...

I love your use of "perception of much of the (uneducated) world about Israel", without heading down the "hate" road, why do you feel that much of the world is uneducated in comparison to Israel?

Israel has every right to defend itself against terrorist attacks, in the same way that EVERY nation has the right to defend itself.... No arguement from me on that one...

If you looked at my previous posts you would see that I do consider Israel a "special case"...

As a "special case" there needs to be "special" considerations that should be implemented by allied forces and NOT by the oft demonized forces of Israel...

Israel exists, long live Israel... Gaza exists, long live Gaza...

Do I believe that the leaders of either state have "good intentions".... NO!

That is why I believe a 3rd party is required to intervene and make a powerful step in between the two 'belligerent' states..

Just my open, honest thoughts... I'm not defending Hamas, nor am I defending , and I use this term loosely, the Likud party...

And just who IS this "3rd party" that will be around 4 years from now?