The Humanitarian Gaza Flotillas Saga

[Billo_Really]

Only when you assholes bring up Nazism.

Hitler s Mufti Catholic Answers

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/books/review/Segev-t.html?_r=0

You spew out your Mufti vomits every time the wind blows.

In fact, you do it so much, one wonders if you're punishing the forum for not kow-towing to your racist psycho-babble.

 

[Billo_Really]

Israel is the land of the Jews it is not an occupation. Give it up and allow them to live there in peace.

The West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, is not Jewish land. It will never be Jewish land.

The world would not allow Hitler to keep Poland and it won't allow Israel to keep the occupied territories.

 

[Slyhunter]

Israel is the land of the Jews it is not an occupation. Give it up and allow them to live there in peace.

The West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, is not Jewish land. It will never be Jewish land.

The world would not allow Hitler to keep Poland and it won't allow Israel to keep the occupied territories.

 

[Billo_Really]

What happened 2000 years ago, don't mean jack shit today.

It carry's no legal weight, whatsoever.

 

[Billo_Really]

Why do they need to?

Normally, when someone defends themselves from a foreign force, weapons are the tools you usually do it with.

 

[Billo_Really]

It hasn't gone unnoticed that the Islamic terrorist apologists are silent when it comes to Egypt protecting its citizens by controlling its border area with the Pali' terrorists.

This is all about insensate Jooooooo hatreds from the usual haters.

If you couldn't play the j-card, you wouldn't have anything to say.

 

[Roudy]

Ya don't say?!

That's why there's still an occupation going on.

Occupation by Muslim invaders who cannot coexist with anyone and are always starting up trouble, you must mean.

 

[Roudy]

Why do they need to?

Normally, when someone defends themselves from a foreign force, weapons are the tools you usually do it with.

How about we let them duke it out and whoever wins gets to keep the land? Oooops, already happened in 48, 67, 73, etc. Even though it's been decades after the Arabs attacked Israel and got their butts kicked, they still want a redo.

 

[Roudy]

Why do they need to?

Normally, when someone defends themselves from a foreign force, weapons are the tools you usually do it with.

Right. So Israelis have a right to use whatever means at their disposal to defend themselves as well. So stop whining about it then.

 

[Roudy]

Only when you assholes bring up Nazism.

Hitler s Mufti Catholic Answers

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/books/review/Segev-t.html?_r=0

You spew out your Mufti vomits every time the wind blows.

In fact, you do it so much, one wonders if you're punishing the forum for not kow-towing to your racist psycho-babble.

Stop complaining. Like I said, let's not forget that Palestinians are the bastard children of the marriage of Nazism with Islamic Arab Nationalism. The next time you use the word "Nazi", remember who the real Nazis of the world are today.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where did you get that. Teach me something.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, You cannot go through Gaza, unless you take the HAMAS tunnel or go through the Route 4 Border Checkpoint. It's huge, you can't miss it.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can play that game pretending that there is no Israel, but that is just nonsense.

have attempted to use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel​

You always crack me up with that lie.

You can go from Rafah to Jericho to Beirut without crossing an Israeli border. Where is this so called Israel that you are talking about?

(COMMENT)

There are consequences to that argument.

• The IDF would not be a foreign army. So there would be no occupation.
• The Arab-Israeli conflict would become a Civil War between two factions within the same turf.
• There would be no State of Palestine. The West Bank and Gaza Strip would be just regional names.
• There would be no point to an ICC Inquiry, because it would be a totally domestic matter.

There are a bunch of little things that would change. But how do you define an international border. And What then, is the basis for the ICJ Ruling on the Wall, since there is no border.

Most Respectfully,
R

I just asked a simple question and you are ducking.

About the ICj, my guess is that they don't know.

(COMMENT)

A border is delineated by by an ability to control it. Once a nation/state is recognized, that recognition is unconditional and irrevocable. Even the UN cannot take it back. The recognition of a state may be "express" or "tacit." The tacit recognition is any act which implies the intention of recognizing the state. As for the Security Barrier, it doesn't matter where it is placed, it would all be inside Palestine and a domestic dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

International borders can only be defined by treaty.

Recognition, even by the UN, is a political move that has nothing to do with the law. The UN cannot legitimize or delegitimize states.

(COMMENT)

While it is true that ONE way to define a border is through treaty, But that is not the only way.

The UN cannot make a state. But when the UN votes to admit a state, that is a "tacit" recognition. For instance, the border between Israel and Jordan is inclusive of the West Bank, by treaty. Yet, Israel has recognized the West Bank as independent. Thus, there again you see the recognition kicking in.

But I'm not kidding. where did you get the notion that an international border had to be by treaty. If that is true, then the Secretary-General of the UN is in trouble. The northern boundary is an Armistice Line. That wound mean there is no South Korea. Of course we know that is not true.

Most Respectfully,
R

While it is true that ONE way to define a border is through treaty, But that is not the only way.​

I don't know what other way there is.

Borders and land are intrinsically linked. Borders merely define the presence of land. In reality the issue of borders is an issue of land.

The UN states that the Palestinians have the inalienable right to territorial integrity. I presume this to mean that nobody can arbitrarily lay claim to any land inside Palestine's international borders.

There are other items of interest in relation to land. It is illegal to acquire territory by force, and it is illegal to annex occupied land.

The only way for Israel to acquire any Palestinian land is by treaty with the Palestinians.

 

[Phoenall]

Seriously, you want the Palis to own Israel and have them eating out your hand?
Also solve the fishing issue? FISH FARMING. Its the kind of innovated solution the Israelis might come up with.

But in this case, the secret weapon would be salmon, and a battery of fish smokers.
Hell, Ive just shifted the balance of power in the Holy Land.

White fish are a better option as they are less polluting, salmon are a dirty fish prone to parasite infestations and need to be tended constantly. Sea bass are an option as they are protected and only farmed fish can be sold under 42 cm ( 16 inches ). I am sure that with Israel's help the Palestinians could have a thriving fish farm industry in no time and a ready market for all the fish they could farm

Whitefish it is then partner. Want to go halvsies with me and be the Jewish founding fathers of the Pali smoked fish industry? Seriously, i can smelll the peace already.

Why not sounds like a good investment for the future, as long as we don't have to pay hamas protection money.

I always wanted to invest in Gaza under Hamas. What could go wrong? Would match the $12 of Zionist money I contributed to trees to Israel when I was 10...

That with my $12 would enable us to buy all of gaza and take full control. Will contact hamas ASAP with the details and see what they say

 

[Phoenall]

http://www.ijser.org/researchpaper\A-PARAMETRIC-STUDY-OF-SOLAR-AND-WIND-ENERGY-IN-GAZA-STRIP.pdf
Gaza - renewable energy for a just and durable peace - The Ecologist
http://library.iugaza.edu.ps/thesis/107606.pdf
Wind energy in West Bank and Gaza Strip

Only problem with wind energy is its duty cycle of less than 10%. The turbines would need to have a life of 50 years maintenance free just to break even as the population of Europe are now finding out after being conned by energy firms.

That's why folks should be looking for "off-grid" applications of wind. To do things that are not time-critical. Like smoke houses or pumping water or desalinizing water or making hydrogen or biofuels.

I suppose we could open up a re-fried beans stall in gaza and turn it into a national dish, would be plenty of wind and gas to power two renewable power sources.

 

[Phoenall]

http://www.ijser.org/researchpaper\A-PARAMETRIC-STUDY-OF-SOLAR-AND-WIND-ENERGY-IN-GAZA-STRIP.pdf
Gaza - renewable energy for a just and durable peace - The Ecologist
http://library.iugaza.edu.ps/thesis/107606.pdf
Wind energy in West Bank and Gaza Strip

Only problem with wind energy is its duty cycle of less than 10%. The turbines would need to have a life of 50 years maintenance free just to break even as the population of Europe are now finding out after being conned by energy firms.

That's why folks should be looking for "off-grid" applications of wind. To do things that are not time-critical. Like smoke houses or pumping water or desalinizing water or making hydrogen or biofuels.

I suppose we could open up a re-fried beans stall in gaza and turn it into a national dish, would be plenty of wind and gas to power two renewable power sources.

I hate peas! Always have, always will.

How come I can't PM you?

Chick peas are not the same as green peas, they are an eastern delicacy

Imagine that. An expert on the I/P conflict that doesnt know how humus is made......

I don't think anyone who hasn't eaten a falafel pita with humus, tahini, salad and sauerkraut, should be allowed to give an opinion on the I/P conflict.

Sauerkraut? Pickled turnips, carrots, peppers, cauliflower and beans maybe.

I'd rather have shawarma than falafel

Falafel pitas with all the trimmings are good for those nights you want to go meatless. In Israel, they top them off with French fries (which they call chips). Great for vegetarians to get their protein.

I wonder if we could somehow make them taste like bacon, we manage it with turkey , then the carnivores will still be getting their meat hit.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), dealing with the trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), is not in force yet.

The illicit trade in conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market, or for unauthorized end use and end users, including in the commission of terrorist acts; and act constituting an offense under international conventions or protocols.

It goes without saying that in contemporary times, SALWs are the tools of choice in civil wars, organized crime, gang warfare and terrorist attacks, and insurgencies. They are well suited for these types of actions to use, to carry, and to conceal. Illicit flows of SALWs are the tools of choice for hostile activities to commence destabilization operations and regional security considerations.

What law makes it illegal for Palestinians to import weapons?

(COMMENT)

To directly answer the question, there is no specific law, applicable to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

There does not have to be. The Arab Palestinians in Gaza, continue to open hostilities with Israel on a regular basis. The Israeli attempts at establishing containment and quarantine of the region to reduce access to such conventional weapons is part and parcel, a Chapter VII, Article 51, self-defense measure.

Wherein, the Arab Palestinian have continuously conducted hostile operations against the State of Israel, a recognized member of the UN, for the last 67 years, and have made no good faith effort to establish peaceful relations. Hostile Arab Palestinians elements under the official control of the Government for the State of Palestine have attempted to use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel, attempting to use bombings, attacks, indiscriminate rocket fire, kidnapping and murder as a forms of coercion threatening the political independence, citizenry, and territorial integrity of Israel.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

To directly answer the question, there is no specific law, applicable to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

There does not have to be. The Arab Palestinians in Gaza, continue to open hostilities with Israel on a regular basis.

So "smuggling" is just more Israeli bullshit.

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.

Then show where they have done so just once, why do you constantly ignore this question. What are they defending from when they fire illegal weapons at Israeli schools, when they murder 3 boys in cold blood on their way home.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), dealing with the trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), is not in force yet.

The illicit trade in conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market, or for unauthorized end use and end users, including in the commission of terrorist acts; and act constituting an offense under international conventions or protocols.

It goes without saying that in contemporary times, SALWs are the tools of choice in civil wars, organized crime, gang warfare and terrorist attacks, and insurgencies. They are well suited for these types of actions to use, to carry, and to conceal. Illicit flows of SALWs are the tools of choice for hostile activities to commence destabilization operations and regional security considerations.

What law makes it illegal for Palestinians to import weapons?

(COMMENT)

To directly answer the question, there is no specific law, applicable to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

There does not have to be. The Arab Palestinians in Gaza, continue to open hostilities with Israel on a regular basis. The Israeli attempts at establishing containment and quarantine of the region to reduce access to such conventional weapons is part and parcel, a Chapter VII, Article 51, self-defense measure.

Wherein, the Arab Palestinian have continuously conducted hostile operations against the State of Israel, a recognized member of the UN, for the last 67 years, and have made no good faith effort to establish peaceful relations. Hostile Arab Palestinians elements under the official control of the Government for the State of Palestine have attempted to use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel, attempting to use bombings, attacks, indiscriminate rocket fire, kidnapping and murder as a forms of coercion threatening the political independence, citizenry, and territorial integrity of Israel.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

have attempted to use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel​

You always crack me up with that lie.

You can go from Rafah to Jericho to Beirut without crossing an Israeli border. Where is this so called Israel that you are talking about?

You forget about armistice lines and LoN mandated borders of the Jewish national home that you need to cross, these act as borders for control purposes and entry into Israel

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where did you get that. Teach me something.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, You cannot go through Gaza, unless you take the HAMAS tunnel or go through the Route 4 Border Checkpoint. It's huge, you can't miss it.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can play that game pretending that there is no Israel, but that is just nonsense.

(COMMENT)

There are consequences to that argument.

• The IDF would not be a foreign army. So there would be no occupation.
• The Arab-Israeli conflict would become a Civil War between two factions within the same turf.
• There would be no State of Palestine. The West Bank and Gaza Strip would be just regional names.
• There would be no point to an ICC Inquiry, because it would be a totally domestic matter.

There are a bunch of little things that would change. But how do you define an international border. And What then, is the basis for the ICJ Ruling on the Wall, since there is no border.

Most Respectfully,
R

I just asked a simple question and you are ducking.

About the ICj, my guess is that they don't know.

(COMMENT)

A border is delineated by by an ability to control it. Once a nation/state is recognized, that recognition is unconditional and irrevocable. Even the UN cannot take it back. The recognition of a state may be "express" or "tacit." The tacit recognition is any act which implies the intention of recognizing the state. As for the Security Barrier, it doesn't matter where it is placed, it would all be inside Palestine and a domestic dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

International borders can only be defined by treaty.

Recognition, even by the UN, is a political move that has nothing to do with the law. The UN cannot legitimize or delegitimize states.

(COMMENT)

While it is true that ONE way to define a border is through treaty, But that is not the only way.

The UN cannot make a state. But when the UN votes to admit a state, that is a "tacit" recognition. For instance, the border between Israel and Jordan is inclusive of the West Bank, by treaty. Yet, Israel has recognized the West Bank as independent. Thus, there again you see the recognition kicking in.

But I'm not kidding. where did you get the notion that an international border had to be by treaty. If that is true, then the Secretary-General of the UN is in trouble. The northern boundary is an Armistice Line. That wound mean there is no South Korea. Of course we know that is not true.

Most Respectfully,
R

While it is true that ONE way to define a border is through treaty, But that is not the only way.​

I don't know what other way there is.

Borders and land are intrinsically linked. Borders merely define the presence of land. In reality the issue of borders is an issue of land.

The UN states that the Palestinians have the inalienable right to territorial integrity. I presume this to mean that nobody can arbitrarily lay claim to any land inside Palestine's international borders.

There are other items of interest in relation to land. It is illegal to acquire territory by force, and it is illegal to annex occupied land.

The only way for Israel to acquire any Palestinian land is by treaty with the Palestinians.

Just who signed for these Palestinian international borders then, when was the treaty drawn up and who signed for Palestine, Egypt, Jordan and Israel. Don't forget until 1988 Palestine as a nation did not exist in the eyes of the UN or world powers.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can play that game pretending that there is no Israel, but that is just nonsense.

have attempted to use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel​

You always crack me up with that lie.

You can go from Rafah to Jericho to Beirut without crossing an Israeli border. Where is this so called Israel that you are talking about?

(COMMENT)

There are consequences to that argument.

• The IDF would not be a foreign army. So there would be no occupation.
• The Arab-Israeli conflict would become a Civil War between two factions within the same turf.
• There would be no State of Palestine. The West Bank and Gaza Strip would be just regional names.
• There would be no point to an ICC Inquiry, because it would be a totally domestic matter.

There are a bunch of little things that would change. But how do you define an international border. And What then, is the basis for the ICJ Ruling on the Wall, since there is no border.

Most Respectfully,
R

I just asked a simple question and you are ducking.

About the ICJ, my guess is that they don't know.

No he replied with well thought out and structured questions asked at a level commensurate with your intelligence, seems you are dumber that we originally thought.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, You cannot go through Gaza, unless you take the HAMAS tunnel or go through the Route 4 Border Checkpoint. It's huge, you can't miss it.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can play that game pretending that there is no Israel, but that is just nonsense.

have attempted to use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel​

You always crack me up with that lie.

You can go from Rafah to Jericho to Beirut without crossing an Israeli border. Where is this so called Israel that you are talking about?

(COMMENT)

There are consequences to that argument.

• The IDF would not be a foreign army. So there would be no occupation.
• The Arab-Israeli conflict would become a Civil War between two factions within the same turf.
• There would be no State of Palestine. The West Bank and Gaza Strip would be just regional names.
• There would be no point to an ICC Inquiry, because it would be a totally domestic matter.

There are a bunch of little things that would change. But how do you define an international border. And What then, is the basis for the ICJ Ruling on the Wall, since there is no border.

Most Respectfully,
R

I just asked a simple question and you are ducking.

About the ICj, my guess is that they don't know.

(COMMENT)

A border is delineated by by an ability to control it. Once a nation/state is recognized, that recognition is unconditional and irrevocable. Even the UN cannot take it back. The recognition of a state may be "express" or "tacit." The tacit recognition is any act which implies the intention of recognizing the state. As for the Security Barrier, it doesn't matter where it is placed, it would all be inside Palestine and a domestic dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

International borders can only be defined by treaty.

Recognition, even by the UN, is a political move that has nothing to do with the law. The UN cannot legitimize or delegitimize states.

So which treaty delineated the international borders of the nation of Palestine ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), dealing with the trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), is not in force yet.

The illicit trade in conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market, or for unauthorized end use and end users, including in the commission of terrorist acts; and act constituting an offense under international conventions or protocols.

It goes without saying that in contemporary times, SALWs are the tools of choice in civil wars, organized crime, gang warfare and terrorist attacks, and insurgencies. They are well suited for these types of actions to use, to carry, and to conceal. Illicit flows of SALWs are the tools of choice for hostile activities to commence destabilization operations and regional security considerations.

What law makes it illegal for Palestinians to import weapons?

(COMMENT)

To directly answer the question, there is no specific law, applicable to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

There does not have to be. The Arab Palestinians in Gaza, continue to open hostilities with Israel on a regular basis. The Israeli attempts at establishing containment and quarantine of the region to reduce access to such conventional weapons is part and parcel, a Chapter VII, Article 51, self-defense measure.

Wherein, the Arab Palestinian have continuously conducted hostile operations against the State of Israel, a recognized member of the UN, for the last 67 years, and have made no good faith effort to establish peaceful relations. Hostile Arab Palestinians elements under the official control of the Government for the State of Palestine have attempted to use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel, attempting to use bombings, attacks, indiscriminate rocket fire, kidnapping and murder as a forms of coercion threatening the political independence, citizenry, and territorial integrity of Israel.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

To directly answer the question, there is no specific law, applicable to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

There does not have to be. The Arab Palestinians in Gaza, continue to open hostilities with Israel on a regular basis.

So "smuggling" is just more Israeli bullshit.

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.

The Palestinians wouldn't need to defend themselves if they didn't attack.

Firing rockets randomly into civilian areas in Israel is not defending themselves.
Wearing suicide vests and blowing up school busses is not defending themselves.

The Christians and Muslims of Palestine have had to defend themselves since the European Zionists began their colonization of Palestine.

LIAR as they where attacking and killing the Jews before Zionism was invented, right back to the Romans