UN calls on Israel to lift Gaza blockade

[Lipush]

That's nice.

That and $2.00 will get you a medium-sized cup of coffee at a Starbucks.

Now, all you need to do is to make your opinion operative at-law.

After that, all you need to do is to ENFORCE your operative legal opinion.

Good luck with both, but especially that last bit.

The blockade punishes all 1.5 million Gazan's.

That is considered "collective punishment".

Collective punishment is a war crime.

Blame Hamas for that.

Something you might ignore or simply not know.

Israel is having business with private and public companies who deliver gas and fuel into Gaza. But Hamas refuse to deliver said fuel to the work-sites and companies which convey the gas to private housing, Hamas is basically 'boycotting' gas from both Israel and the PA.

The only choice they really have is receiving gas and fuel from the Egyptian border, but since Al-Sisi decided to fight the smugglers and destroyed nearly half of the tunnels to Gaza, their option to smuggle gas is no more. And they cannot receive it directly because Egpyt is sick and tired of Hamas, so they decided to close the border and not send any gas.

So the Gaza civilians are left in the dark, thanks to Hamas.

And what does Hamas do? blames the Jews.

And you assholes buy into that crap

 

[Billo_Really]

Blame Hamas for that.

Something you might ignore or simply not know.

Israel is having business with private and public companies who deliver gas and fuel into Gaza. But Hamas refuse to deliver said fuel to the work-sites and companies which convey the gas to private housing, Hamas is basically 'boycotting' gas from both Israel and the PA.

The only choice they really have is receiving gas and fuel from the Egyptian border, but since Al-Sisi decided to fight the smugglers and destroyed nearly half of the tunnels to Gaza, their option to smuggle gas is no more. And they cannot receive it directly because Egpyt is sick and tired of Hamas, so they decided to close the border and not send any gas.

So the Gaza civilians are left in the dark, thanks to Hamas.

And what does Hamas do? blames the Jews.

And you assholes buy into that crap

Sorry, I prefer to blame the ones responsible for the blockade itself.

 

[Lipush]

Blame Hamas for that.

Something you might ignore or simply not know.

Israel is having business with private and public companies who deliver gas and fuel into Gaza. But Hamas refuse to deliver said fuel to the work-sites and companies which convey the gas to private housing, Hamas is basically 'boycotting' gas from both Israel and the PA.

The only choice they really have is receiving gas and fuel from the Egyptian border, but since Al-Sisi decided to fight the smugglers and destroyed nearly half of the tunnels to Gaza, their option to smuggle gas is no more. And they cannot receive it directly because Egpyt is sick and tired of Hamas, so they decided to close the border and not send any gas.

So the Gaza civilians are left in the dark, thanks to Hamas.

And what does Hamas do? blames the Jews.

And you assholes buy into that crap

Sorry, I prefer to blame the ones responsible for the blockade itself.

So blame Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

The hyena wishes to rip my face off, you blame me for putting it in a cage?

 

[Kondor3]

No.

The point you made, plus $2.00, would buy you a cup of coffee.

Translation: the point was worthless.

Okay, have it your way.

You cared enough to "suggest" me a cup of joe.

You remind me of an old girlfriend.

Always flapping her jaw and always have to have the last word.

 

[Kondor3]

Indeed.

And I have the greatest respect for the laws of the United States and share every citizens concern over the way in which these are applied within our own jurisdiction.

I was (and am) so committed to the United States and its laws and popular governance that my adult service began by volunteering to serve in its Armed Forces during wartime and it continued in various other ways after leaving the service.


Indeed. Any American citizen who does not support the rule of law within the United States and the equitable application of law throughout our jurisdiction is not a countryman that I wish to call my own.

Respecting "only" the laws within the United States, but not supporting the laws we co-write in the international arena, is not really supporting the concept of the "rule of law" at all.

You either respect the law, or you don't. There's no "I respect it over here, but I don't over there". That's just a bunch of crap! That's like saying to someone, "I love you when we're here, but I don't love you when we're there!"

Another one of our values is that "all men are created equal"; but in your America, it's "all men (who reside in the Continental United States) are created equal. All other men can go **** themselves".

It's called 'taking sides' in a conflict where both sides have a variety of valid legal points, and where wrongdoing may be readily attributed to both sides...

Serving to harden the hearts of those working both sides of the fence, and causing each side to overlook a variety of grievances and points that the other side has.

From your vantage point, it's called throwing rocks via ad hominem attack at those who take-up position with the other side, and who disagree with you.

Stop being a whiny-***** ad hominem attacker and argue the points, boy, and not your half-assed guesstimation of the characteristics of your colleagues.

Your simplistic, black-and-white and juvenile assessment is inaccurate, and not even very interesting.

Now, go dry-hump somebody else's leg for a while, junior, 'cause you're wrinkling my pants-cuff.

========================================

Have a nice Thanksgiving holiday.

 

[georgephillip]

Would you agree Hamas would have to recognize Israel as a Jewish State with sovereignty over all historical Palestine (the River to the sea)?

Good question. Has anyone defined, exactly, where this Israel is that they should recognize.

Funny thing is, anyone whos given a map can identify Israel.

Ask them to identify 'Palestine', they won't know where to look !

Tinmore, why do you choose to play stupid ?

If you don't recognize that Israel exists, just say it !! It sure seems that way .

Why do Israeli schools teach geography with maps of Israel that don't include any Green Lines? At least two generations of Jews believe "Israel" extends from the River to the sea; do you?

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, Kondor3, et al,

The "Rule of Law" (RoL) is a very complex concept. It is clear here, that some have a misunderstanding of "what" the RoL is, and how to apply it.

"The rule of law is the underlying framework of rules and rights that make prosperous and fair societies possible. The rule of law is a system in which no one, including government, is above the law; where laws protect fundamental rights; and where justice is accessible to all."

Indeed.

And I have the greatest respect for the laws of the United States and share every citizens concern over the way in which these are applied within our own jurisdiction.

I was (and am) so committed to the United States and its laws and popular governance that my adult service began by volunteering to serve in its Armed Forces during wartime and it continued in various other ways after leaving the service.

Indeed. Any American citizen who does not support the rule of law within the United States and the equitable application of law throughout our jurisdiction is not a countryman that I wish to call my own.

Respecting "only" the laws within the United States, but not supporting the laws we co-write in the international arena, is not really supporting the concept of the "rule of law" at all.

You either respect the law, or you don't. There's no "I respect it over here, but I don't over there". That's just a bunch of crap! That's like saying to someone, "I love you when we're here, but I don't love you when we're there!"

Another one of our values is that "all men are created equal"; but in your America, it's "all men (who reside in the Continental United States) are created equal. All other men can go **** themselves".

(COMMENT)

The "RoL" and respecting any particular law, are two different things. The context being that there are such things as misfeasance (the performance of an act which might lawfully be done, in an improper manner), malfeasance (intentionally performing an act that is illegal), and nonfeasance (the omission of some act that ought to have been performed) that may affect the proper application of the law.

The concepts that "all men are created equal" is understood as a basic tenant in American Law; and supported both constitutionally and in practical application of natural law.

The concept that "all men are created equal" is not universally accepted outside the US. This is built on the concept that "all men are created equal but all men do not develop equally." And the RoL is applied in the framework of a developed situation; and no country, no governmental institution can guarantee complete equality when government (of the people and for the people) decide to apply the concept in their own fashion. Nor can the rights of equality be applied when the indigenous population selects a bias against the immigrant population (a venue bias against equality). In this case, the concept is that "all men" should have equal rights to treated equally under the law as that law is applied within that venue.

As "RoL" is applied to the political contest in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, neither side has a clear handle on the application. It is a matter of which side is more "wrong;" and not which side is in the "right." Neither side has the right to claim the moral high ground.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

Billo_Really, Kondor3, et al,

The "Rule of Law" (RoL) is a very complex concept. It is clear here, that some have a misunderstanding of "what" the RoL is, and how to apply it.

"The rule of law is the underlying framework of rules and rights that make prosperous and fair societies possible. The rule of law is a system in which no one, including government, is above the law; where laws protect fundamental rights; and where justice is accessible to all."

Indeed.

And I have the greatest respect for the laws of the United States and share every citizens concern over the way in which these are applied within our own jurisdiction.

I was (and am) so committed to the United States and its laws and popular governance that my adult service began by volunteering to serve in its Armed Forces during wartime and it continued in various other ways after leaving the service.

Indeed. Any American citizen who does not support the rule of law within the United States and the equitable application of law throughout our jurisdiction is not a countryman that I wish to call my own.

Respecting "only" the laws within the United States, but not supporting the laws we co-write in the international arena, is not really supporting the concept of the "rule of law" at all.

You either respect the law, or you don't. There's no "I respect it over here, but I don't over there". That's just a bunch of crap! That's like saying to someone, "I love you when we're here, but I don't love you when we're there!"

Another one of our values is that "all men are created equal"; but in your America, it's "all men (who reside in the Continental United States) are created equal. All other men can go **** themselves".

(COMMENT)

The "RoL" and respecting any particular law, are two different things. The context being that there are such things as misfeasance (the performance of an act which might lawfully be done, in an improper manner), malfeasance (intentionally performing an act that is illegal), and nonfeasance (the omission of some act that ought to have been performed) that may affect the proper application of the law.

The concepts that "all men are created equal" is understood as a basic tenant in American Law; and supported both constitutionally and in practical application of natural law.

The concept that "all men are created equal" is not universally accepted outside the US. This is built on the concept that "all men are created equal but all men do not develop equally." And the RoL is applied in the framework of a developed situation; and no country, no governmental institution can guarantee complete equality when government (of the people and for the people) decide to apply the concept in their own fashion. Nor can the rights of equality be applied when the indigenous population selects a bias against the immigrant population (a venue bias against equality). In this case, the concept is that "all men" should have equal rights to treated equally under the law as that law is applied within that venue.

As "RoL" is applied to the political contest in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, neither side has a clear handle on the application. It is a matter of which side is more "wrong;" and not which side is in the "right." Neither side has the right to claim the moral high ground.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco...are you implying that only Americans are beneficiaries of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

"Human rights are 'commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.' [1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone)."

Human rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[toastman]

Good question. Has anyone defined, exactly, where this Israel is that they should recognize.

Funny thing is, anyone whos given a map can identify Israel.

Ask them to identify 'Palestine', they won't know where to look !

Tinmore, why do you choose to play stupid ?

If you don't recognize that Israel exists, just say it !! It sure seems that way .

Why do Israeli schools teach geography with maps of Israel that don't include any Green Lines? At least two generations of Jews believe "Israel" extends from the River to the sea; do you?

I recognize Israel the same way that all rational people do.

Speaking of textbooks, what do you think Palestinians textbooks show ?

 

[docmauser1]

"Human rights are 'commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.' [1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone)."

How does that help mexicans to vote in the US?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Funny thing is, anyone whos given a map can identify Israel.

Ask them to identify 'Palestine', they won't know where to look !

Tinmore, why do you choose to play stupid ?

If you don't recognize that Israel exists, just say it !! It sure seems that way .

Why do Israeli schools teach geography with maps of Israel that don't include any Green Lines? At least two generations of Jews believe "Israel" extends from the River to the sea; do you?

I recognize Israel the same way that all rational people do.

Speaking of textbooks, what do you think Palestinians textbooks show ?

Palestine inside its international borders.

 

[docmauser1]

Why do Israeli schools teach geography with maps of Israel that don't include any Green Lines? At least two generations of Jews believe "Israel" extends from the River to the sea; do you?

I recognize Israel the same way that all rational people do. Speaking of textbooks, what do you think Palestinians textbooks show ?

Palestine inside international borders.

Of Israel, of course. Palistanians, as we know, have no land, no country and no borders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Billo_Really, Kondor3, et al,

The "Rule of Law" (RoL) is a very complex concept. It is clear here, that some have a misunderstanding of "what" the RoL is, and how to apply it.

"The rule of law is the underlying framework of rules and rights that make prosperous and fair societies possible. The rule of law is a system in which no one, including government, is above the law; where laws protect fundamental rights; and where justice is accessible to all."

Indeed.

And I have the greatest respect for the laws of the United States and share every citizens concern over the way in which these are applied within our own jurisdiction.

I was (and am) so committed to the United States and its laws and popular governance that my adult service began by volunteering to serve in its Armed Forces during wartime and it continued in various other ways after leaving the service.

Indeed. Any American citizen who does not support the rule of law within the United States and the equitable application of law throughout our jurisdiction is not a countryman that I wish to call my own.

Respecting "only" the laws within the United States, but not supporting the laws we co-write in the international arena, is not really supporting the concept of the "rule of law" at all.

You either respect the law, or you don't. There's no "I respect it over here, but I don't over there". That's just a bunch of crap! That's like saying to someone, "I love you when we're here, but I don't love you when we're there!"

Another one of our values is that "all men are created equal"; but in your America, it's "all men (who reside in the Continental United States) are created equal. All other men can go **** themselves".

(COMMENT)

The "RoL" and respecting any particular law, are two different things. The context being that there are such things as misfeasance (the performance of an act which might lawfully be done, in an improper manner), malfeasance (intentionally performing an act that is illegal), and nonfeasance (the omission of some act that ought to have been performed) that may affect the proper application of the law.

The concepts that "all men are created equal" is understood as a basic tenant in American Law; and supported both constitutionally and in practical application of natural law.

The concept that "all men are created equal" is not universally accepted outside the US. This is built on the concept that "all men are created equal but all men do not develop equally." And the RoL is applied in the framework of a developed situation; and no country, no governmental institution can guarantee complete equality when government (of the people and for the people) decide to apply the concept in their own fashion. Nor can the rights of equality be applied when the indigenous population selects a bias against the immigrant population (a venue bias against equality). In this case, the concept is that "all men" should have equal rights to treated equally under the law as that law is applied within that venue.

As "RoL" is applied to the political contest in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, neither side has a clear handle on the application. It is a matter of which side is more "wrong;" and not which side is in the "right." Neither side has the right to claim the moral high ground.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, Rocco, why do the Palestinians continuously call for the enforcement of international law while Israel keeps saying no no no?

 

[Billo_Really]

It's called 'taking sides' in a conflict where both sides have a variety of valid legal points, and where wrongdoing may be readily attributed to both sides...

Okay, lets put that statement to the test. Lets see you walk your talk, so to speak?

Tell me, in your opinion, what "valid legal points" do the Palestinian's have in regards to the Israeli's?

And what "wrongdoing" can you "attribute" to Israeli actions?

Serving to harden the hearts of those working both sides of the fence, and causing each side to overlook a variety of grievances and points that the other side has.

Huh?

From your vantage point, it's called throwing rocks via ad hominem attack at those who take-up position with the other side, and who disagree with you.

I only throw rocks when someone want to have a "rock fight", instead of a debate. And I rarely ever use ad hominems. I make it a point to specifically address what the opposition has to say and their reasons for saying them.

Stop being a whiny-***** ad hominem attacker and argue the points, boy, and not your half-assed guesstimation of the characteristics of your colleagues.

Your simplistic, black-and-white and juvenile assessment is inaccurate, and not even very interesting.

It's not inaccurate. It's common sense (and standard debating practice). You cannot debate an issue, without addressing the issue itself.

Now, go dry-hump somebody else's leg for a while, junior, 'cause you're wrinkling my pants-cuff.

You saw that?

Have a nice Thanksgiving holiday.

Thank you! And don't talk about me when they're carving up the bird.

 

[toastman]

Why do Israeli schools teach geography with maps of Israel that don't include any Green Lines? At least two generations of Jews believe "Israel" extends from the River to the sea; do you?

I recognize Israel the same way that all rational people do.

Speaking of textbooks, what do you think Palestinians textbooks show ?

Palestine inside its international borders.

I didn't ask you the question because I've debated with you several times about land, borders, 'Palestine' and all that. You have no clue what you're talking about when it comes to those issues.
Oh, and Palestine has no internationally recognized borders.

 

[toastman]

Billo_Really, Kondor3, et al,

The "Rule of Law" (RoL) is a very complex concept. It is clear here, that some have a misunderstanding of "what" the RoL is, and how to apply it.

"The rule of law is the underlying framework of rules and rights that make prosperous and fair societies possible. The rule of law is a system in which no one, including government, is above the law; where laws protect fundamental rights; and where justice is accessible to all."

Respecting "only" the laws within the United States, but not supporting the laws we co-write in the international arena, is not really supporting the concept of the "rule of law" at all.

You either respect the law, or you don't. There's no "I respect it over here, but I don't over there". That's just a bunch of crap! That's like saying to someone, "I love you when we're here, but I don't love you when we're there!"

Another one of our values is that "all men are created equal"; but in your America, it's "all men (who reside in the Continental United States) are created equal. All other men can go **** themselves".

(COMMENT)

The "RoL" and respecting any particular law, are two different things. The context being that there are such things as misfeasance (the performance of an act which might lawfully be done, in an improper manner), malfeasance (intentionally performing an act that is illegal), and nonfeasance (the omission of some act that ought to have been performed) that may affect the proper application of the law.

The concepts that "all men are created equal" is understood as a basic tenant in American Law; and supported both constitutionally and in practical application of natural law.

The concept that "all men are created equal" is not universally accepted outside the US. This is built on the concept that "all men are created equal but all men do not develop equally." And the RoL is applied in the framework of a developed situation; and no country, no governmental institution can guarantee complete equality when government (of the people and for the people) decide to apply the concept in their own fashion. Nor can the rights of equality be applied when the indigenous population selects a bias against the immigrant population (a venue bias against equality). In this case, the concept is that "all men" should have equal rights to treated equally under the law as that law is applied within that venue.

As "RoL" is applied to the political contest in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, neither side has a clear handle on the application. It is a matter of which side is more "wrong;" and not which side is in the "right." Neither side has the right to claim the moral high ground.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, Rocco, why do the Palestinians continuously call for the enforcement of international law while Israel keeps saying no no no?

Why do you bother responding to Rocco if you're going to deflect and not respond to what he posted??

 

[Kondor3]

"...Tell me, in your opinion, what 'valid legal points' do the Palestinian's have in regards to the Israeli's?..."

Cherry-picking of Balfour and UNR 181, for starters?

 

[georgephillip]

Funny thing is, anyone whos given a map can identify Israel.

Ask them to identify 'Palestine', they won't know where to look !

Tinmore, why do you choose to play stupid ?

If you don't recognize that Israel exists, just say it !! It sure seems that way .

Why do Israeli schools teach geography with maps of Israel that don't include any Green Lines? At least two generations of Jews believe "Israel" extends from the River to the sea; do you?

I recognize Israel the same way that all rational people do.

Speaking of textbooks, what do you think Palestinians textbooks show ?

It isn't rational to think about the conflict between Jew and Arab in Palestine as a contest between equals since Israel commands an overwhelming monopoly of violence. I find it likely both sides lie to their children; however, it's the young Jews in the IDF that have had much greater power to affect the facts on the ground in Palestine over the past 65 years.

What's your rational choice for Greater Israel's eastern border?
I'm guessing most young Jews would answer the Jordan River.

 

[georgephillip]

"Human rights are 'commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.' [1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone)."

How does that help mexicans to vote in the US?

Bilingual ballots, of course.

 

[toastman]

Why do Israeli schools teach geography with maps of Israel that don't include any Green Lines? At least two generations of Jews believe "Israel" extends from the River to the sea; do you?

I recognize Israel the same way that all rational people do.

Speaking of textbooks, what do you think Palestinians textbooks show ?

It isn't rational to think about the conflict between Jew and Arab in Palestine as a contest between equals since Israel commands an overwhelming monopoly of violence. I find it likely both sides lie to their children; however, it's the young Jews in the IDF that have had much greater power to affect the facts on the ground in Palestine over the past 65 years.

What's your rational choice for Greater Israel's eastern border?
I'm guessing most young Jews would answer the Jordan River.

In 1994, Israel established a peace treaty with Jordan, that established Israel eastern "internationally recognized borders"