News Hundreds die in Israel raid on Gaza

[Cyrus]

from your own reference and summarizes my point

"More than 17 missiles were directed at an empty government compound, without regard for civilians who lived nearby,"

At a government compound. To summarize your point, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Sorry, you can't do that. (That's an American Exprission for wanting to have it both ways, if your not from the US and are unfamiliar with the expression).

A government building was attacked. Don't like it? Too bad, so sad.

Anways, I call bullsh** on that guys "We are people who live in peace and want to live in peace. If someone committed a crime, they should go after him, not after an entire nation."

No one went after an entire nation...Give me a break for crying out loud. Do you really buy into this propoganda so easily Ahmed? I know you're smarter than this.

It's like when I watch a program on Iran and hear people interviewed overthere saying on camera everything is fine and dandy. Another example of a crock of shi*. Oh yeah, we have no drug problems in Iran -uhuh, sure. And I was born yesterday.

This is the same nonsense, different country. Oh, we are just peace loving people who fire rockets into Israel, we don't do anything wrong and they try to wipe us out as a nation...rightttttttttt. Not buying it.

 

[Phrak]

The very title of this thread is Mendacious

Its the same middle east nonsense told time after time after time.

War is made on Israel. Israel retaliates. The attackers hide among civilians. Civilians are killed. A cry of outrage propagates out of the Arab world. Some in the west buy into the propaganda campaign.

Getting civilians killed is what Hamas wants. The more, the better. Like the guy who started this thread, they get an opportunity talk about kill ratios, targeting civlians and the like. It's an integral and effective part of the PR campaign. And it works time after time on TV news zombies, and those predisposed against Israel.

 

[tiny-tim]

"Jewish state" (and cake)

The arab nations … are interested in the elimination of Isreal as a Jewish state. …

There's a slight difference. If the UK or the US declared itself a Christian state for Christians then I imagine members of minority religions would feel rather threatened.

A major stumbling block in the recognition of Israel by the PLO is Israel's insistence that the Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state. This is no mere semantics. By declaring the state Jewish the Zionists look to bolster their position in refusing re-entry to the displaced Palestinians and to allow for forced resettlement of non-Jews i.e. Arabs.

(sorry, i know that was over 100 posts ago, but I've only just seen this :)

The http://www.jordanembassyus.org/arab_initiative.htm" quotes the following statement from the Jordanian Foreign Minister on the Arab Peace Initiatve in 2003 (6th paragraph, my emphasis) …

“Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem … the Arab world commits itself to an AGREED solution to the refugee problem, thus addressing Israel’s concern that the demographic character of the Jewish state not be threatened.
…
there is no possibility of a solution that will lead to the changing of the character of the Jewish state.

(this webpage is a full text of the original Initiative, preceded by many comments on it by the Minister)

So the Arab League see nothing wrong with Israel being a Jewish state, and even accepts that that characteristic is not to be threatened.

If the Palestinians choose to object, they are not going to get Arab League support.​

oooh … cake! ​

To summarize your point, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Sorry, you can't do that. (That's an American Exprission for wanting to have it both ways, if your not from the US and are unfamiliar with the expression).

Hi Cyrus!

Nooo … it's an American mangling of a good old English expression "you can't eat your cake and have it" … meaning you can't eat a cake, and still have it afterwards!

Anyone can have a cake, and then eat it!

 

[AhmedEzz]

Please people try to focus one bit and you'll see what I'm talking about. I don't care about Hamas, I care about civilian casualties and destruction of limited infrastructure.

So you are all arguing that Israel already did its best to avoid civilian casualties. While I on the other hand think that Israel carelessly targets Hamas regardless of the number of casualties or the amount of destruction done to the civilian areas and to the infrastructure...are we in agreement so far?

 

[seycyrus]

Please people try to focus one bit

I am focused. Where do you see a lack of focus?

... I don't care about Hamas, I care about civilian casualties and destruction of limited infrastructure.

The civilian casualties are caused by cowardly terrorists who use innocent civilains as "meat shields".

So you are all arguing that Israel already did its best to avoid civilian casualties.

Let's put it this way. Israel tries approximately 1.21 million times harder to avoid civilian caualties than does Hamas.

While I on the other hand think that Israel carelessly targets Hamas regardless of the number of casualties or the amount of destruction done to the civilian areas and to the infrastructure...are we in agreement so far?

That's a farr cry from "intentionally targets civilians".

And no, we are not in agreement. It is my contention that Israel does it's best to avoid collateral damage.

It is my further contention that Hamas fires *from* civilian areas in order to use the population as a shield. A cowardly act. Do you agree to that?

 

[tiny-tim]

Hi AhmedEzz!

Please people try to focus one bit and you'll see what I'm talking about. I don't care about Hamas, I care about civilian casualties and destruction of limited infrastructure.

Yes, let's cool down and focus, you've made it very clear (unlike some) that you don't support Hamas …

Hamas is a terrorist organization with its own foreign agenda, it has naught to do with Palestinian resistance.

Alright so, hamas is wrong - all the kind of wrong you can imagine-. It is using the lives of innocent (yes, innocent) people to achieve its goals. No matter how many Palestinian civilian is dead,they don't care.

… and that your concern is avoiding civilian casualties …

(this thread would have been a lot more productive if you had started it, with a title something like "is Israel trying to avoid civilian casualties?")

So you are all arguing that Israel already did its best to avoid civilian casualties. While I on the other hand think that Israel carelessly targets Hamas regardless of the number of casualties or the amount of destruction done to the civilian areas and to the infrastructure...are we in agreement so far?

Yes, that seems to be the issue …

you agree (I believe) that Hamas tries to kill as many civilians as it can, but you question whether Israel behaves substantially better …

Israel claims to try to avoid civilian deaths, but you point to the actual figures, and "we" reply …
i] on the UN figures, it's about 1 civilian death to 5 non-civilians
ii] Israel has leafleted and text-messaged civilians in specific areas, warning them to leave
iii] civilian deaths in war are unavoidable, yet Israel has a record of trying to avoid or minimise them
iv] Israel are nice guys, and Jewish, and therefore naturally regret any civilian deaths, and take them into account in making decisions

There is also a separate issue … is Israel obliged (and if so, how far), under either international law or morality, to avoid civilian deaths in certain circumstances, for example if Hamas deliberately launches rockets, or stores munitions, in a civilian area?

 

[jreelawg]

I'm still unclear about what a cease fire would mean, or has meant. If there is a cease fire, will that include a lift of the blockade? It would be hard to get Hamas to stop attacking while you continue to cut the city off from supplies.

 

[jreelawg]

I can't imagine how precise Israel is being if they have even attacked a U.S. representative, doctors, and a CNN journalists, in a ship carrying humanitarian aid. Israel accused them of participating in terrorist activities.

"At 10 am cypriot time, a ship flying the flag of Gibraltar was rammed by surrounding Israeli gunboats. The Dignity is carrying 3 tons of aid and passengers from around the world. Journalists (including CNN’s Karl Penhaul), human rights activists, doctors and US representative Cynthia McKinney. Shots were fired into the water by the Israeli Navy."

http://freeandindependent.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/israel-aid-ship-dignity-shots-fired/

 

[Hurkyl]

I can't imagine how precise Israel is being if they have even attacked a U.S. representative, doctors, and a CNN journalists, in a ship carrying humanitarian aid.

That doesn't exactly look like an unbiased source. A quick google search suggests the ship was trying to run a blockade at the time...

 

[Proton Soup]

Please people try to focus one bit and you'll see what I'm talking about. I don't care about Hamas, I care about civilian casualties and destruction of limited infrastructure.

So you are all arguing that Israel already did its best to avoid civilian casualties. While I on the other hand think that Israel carelessly targets Hamas regardless of the number of casualties or the amount of destruction done to the civilian areas and to the infrastructure...are we in agreement so far?

actually, i think hamas is more careless in how it targets its weapons. israel just has a lot more firepower so the actual destruction and number of civilian casualties is a lot more one-sided.

but, according to what i heard on the news, palestinian population density is something like 7000 people per square mile in Gaza. if you locate a legitimate military target in an area like that, civilian casualties are going to happen.

 

[jreelawg]

That doesn't exactly look like an unbiased source. A quick google search suggests the ship was trying to run a blockade at the time...

Hmm, a blockade on international waters? I didn't know they could do that?

 

[tiny-tim]

Hmm, a blockade on international waters? I didn't know they could do that?

uhhh? how could a blockade be on Israel's own waters?

Blockades do tend to be round another country! ​

… in a ship carrying humanitarian aid …
The Dignity is carrying 3 tons of aid and … US representative Cynthia McKinney.

that extract was quoted from the website of the http://www.freegaza.org/index.php?module=latest_news&id=40e777e07fd7eb5b584efa42e09fdee3&offset="

this is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_McKinney#September_11_attacks" …

McKinney gained national attention for remarks she made following the 9/11 attacks in 2001. She controversially alleged that the United States had advance knowledge of the attacks and that President George W. Bush may have been aware of the incipient attack but failed to warn New Yorkers,[17] allegedly due to his father's business interests: "It is known that President Bush's father, through the Carlyle Group, had–at the time of the attacks–joint business interests with the bin Laden construction company and many defense industry holdings, the stocks of which have soared since September 11." …

(and she's now only a former Congressman )

 

[jreelawg]

uhhh? how could a blockade be on Israel's own waters?

Blockades do tend to be round another country! ​

So you think it is appropriate?

 

[AhmedEzz]

Hi AhmedEzz!


Yes, let's cool down and focus, you've made it very clear (unlike some) that you don't support Hamas …


… and that your concern is avoiding civilian casualties …

(this thread would have been a lot more productive if you had started it, with a title something like "is Israel trying to avoid civilian casualties?")

finally someone with a clear mind

Yes, that seems to be the issue …

you agree (I believe) that Hamas tries to kill as many civilians as it can, but you question whether Israel behaves substantially better …

I labeled Hamas as a terrorist organisation for many things including targeting unarmed civilians. If Israel wants to be labeled as a terrorist state, I suggest it does the same.

Israel claims to try to avoid civilian deaths, but you point to the actual figures, and "we" reply …
i] on the UN figures, it's about 1 civilian death to 5 non-civilians
ii] Israel has leafleted and text-messaged civilians in specific areas, warning them to leave
iii] civilian deaths in war are unavoidable, yet Israel has a record of trying to avoid or minimise them
iv] Israel are nice guys, and Jewish, and therefore naturally regret any civilian deaths, and take them into account in making decisions

ii] I would like a credible source on that
iii] I would like evidence that everything possible was done to avoid civilian casualties rather than blindingly bombing densely populated areas
iv] It has nothing to do with the citizinship or the religion of a person ot decide whether (s)he is a "nice" person. Furthermore, if you take it from that angle, Islam forbids killing unarmed innocents. Besides, if its your mortal enemy, wouldn't you be reluctant to make the preparations to keep him unharmed.

There is also a separate issue … is Israel obliged (and if so, how far), under either international law or morality, to avoid civilian deaths in certain circumstances, for example if Hamas deliberately launches rockets, or stores munitions, in a civilian area?

A comparison between Hamas and Israel makes no sense since we agree that one is a terrorist group and the other is an organized government.

Heads up : 360+ dead and approximately 2000 injured in just 4 days...should we expect more??

 

[jreelawg]

iii] I disagree with the second part of that statement. I think the record is of having little consideration for civilian deaths. For instance the use of cluster bombs in Lebanon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5299938.stm

 

[Phrak]

(this webpage is a full text of the original Initiative, preceded by many comments on it by the Minister)

So the Arab League see nothing wrong with Israel being a Jewish state, and even accepts that that characteristic is not to be threatened.

An interesting read, in and between the lines.

If the Palestinians choose to object, they are not going to get Arab League support.​

oooh … cake! ​

Are those early cake crumbs stuck in that green stubble? I think I've seen something like it once or twice before over twenty years.

 

[Phrak]

I can't imagine how precise Israel is being if they have even attacked a U.S. representative, doctors, and a CNN journalists, in a ship carrying humanitarian aid. Israel accused them of participating in terrorist activities.

It was a floating baby milk factory.

 

[AhmedEzz]

This is my last input in this thread for I have upcoming exams and need to study (why is electrical engineering so hard!)..My last words: I hope that the discussions remains to the level of PF and that even if we disagree, we don't hate each other for it.

(that was a bit dramatic but what the heck...waiting for the sarcastic comments)

 

[mjsd]

These questions have definite answers.

Not really. The answer is who started the provocation...

okay, do you know that this is the real sticking point?... who started it eh? How far back into history do you want to go here? And I can assure that both sides do not just have a slightly different version of the history (from the establishment of the state of Israel after WW2, to various UN resolutions, and lack of resolutions, or wars/"land grabs", or those infamous US vetos at the security council), they also disagree on how far back one should go in working out who started it, and who is to blame for any failed resolutions/deals.

So, in my opinion, given such complications, answers to those questions become less definite than some may hope/believe. Until both sides can find some common grounds or mutual benefits, this conflict shall continue, and more civilians will be caught in the crossfire, used as pawns by their political superiors to further whatever agendas they may have in mind for the short or long term.

If they are truly concerned about civilian deads on both sides, some drastically different tactics must be employed by both. IT appears to me though that both sides are "happy" with perpetuating the current loop until one side suddenly yields...

 

[Cyrus]

I labeled Hamas as a terrorist organisation for many things including targeting unarmed civilians. If Israel wants to be labeled as a terrorist state, I suggest it does the same.

I think you wrote this wrong, as Israel does not want to be labeled as a terrorist state. I think you meant to say if isreal does not want to be labeled as a terrorist state. If that's the case, you're dead wrong and have not paid attention to the posts in this thread. The fact is Israel did not target unarmed civilians. This is a fact. Finito. Don't bring this up anymore. It's done. Finished. Over. Comprende?

iii] I would like evidence that everything possible was done to avoid civilian casualties rather than blindingly bombing densely populated areas

Did you not read Russ post on this. He already gave you an answer.

Furthermore, if you take it from that angle, Islam forbids killing unarmed innocents. Besides, if its your mortal enemy, wouldn't you be reluctant to make the preparations to keep him unharmed.

What Islam forbids and what militants do are two seprate worlds. The militants most certainly do kill unarmed civilians.

Heads up : 360+ dead and approximately 2000 injured in just 4 days...should we expect more??

What's that supposed to mean? Sounds like an argument of emotion, which really means quite little - to me at least.

Good luck on your exams!

 

[mheslep]

I can't imagine how precise Israel is being if they have even attacked a U.S. representative, doctors, and a CNN journalists, in a ship carrying humanitarian aid. Israel accused them of participating in terrorist activities.

How could you possibly know who or what was on board? CNN now says 16 medical people and 'supplies'. How could the Israeli's know? Per CNN, the boat was indeed trying to run the Israeli blockade. The Israeli's say the impact happened when the Dignity tried to out maneuver the Israeli patrol boats. Also, the CNN report makes no mention of any shots fired.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/30/gaza.aid.boat/index.html

 

[Phrak]

How could you possibly know who or what was on board? CNN now says 16 medical people and 'supplies'. How could the Israeli's know? Per CNN, the boat was indeed trying to run the Israeli blockade. The Israeli's say the impact happened when the Dignity tried to out maneuver the Israeli patrol boats. Also, the CNN report makes no mention of any shots fired.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/30/gaza.aid.boat/index.html

More, Iranian arms shipments have been a problem in the past, including Katyusha rockets having a range of 20 Km.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/30/gaza.aid.boat/index.html"

It's not as if the Israelis don't have a good reason to blockade Gaza with deadly force while Gaza is busy making war on them. And CNN is complaining the Israelis broken their boat containing some very special people.

No word from the luminary news agency known as CNN about the vessel's recent ports of call either. I would attribute this to a lack of interest on the part of CNN.

 

[jreelawg]

How could you possibly know who or what was on board? CNN now says 16 medical people and 'supplies'. How could the Israeli's know? Per CNN, the boat was indeed trying to run the Israeli blockade. The Israeli's say the impact happened when the Dignity tried to out maneuver the Israeli patrol boats. Also, the CNN report makes no mention of any shots fired.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/30/gaza.aid.boat/index.html

For one thing, it is wrong to just indiscriminately attack people on international waters. Second, they could have boarded the ship and searched them for weapons. Third, it is in-humane to block humanitarian aid. Fourth, it is sad that for months, people have to try and smuggle medical supplies, food, and fuel into their own land.

It would be fine if they stopped and searched people, arrested weapons smugglers, and confinscated weapons, but to not let people bring in fuel, or medical supplies seams a little harsh.

 

[Cyrus]

For one thing, it is wrong to just indiscriminately attack people on international waters.

"Indiscriminately"?...... excuse me?

Do you not understand the concept of a blockade? As in NO ENTRY?

These words actully have meanings to them, you know.

 

[jreelawg]

"Indiscriminately"?...... excuse me?

Do you not understand the concept of a blockaid? As in NO ENTRY?

These words actully have meanings to them, you know.

How about the words "International Waters"?

 

[Cyrus]

How about the words "International Waters"?

What about it?

 

[Phrak]

For one thing, it is wrong to just indiscriminately attack people on international waters.

It was not indiscriminate.

Second, they could have boarded the ship and searched them for weapons.

No. The ship was running.

Third, it is in-humane to block humanitarian aid.

What evidence did the Isrealis have that the boat did not contain arms? None. I find your argument inhumane: you don't seem to care if they were running arms.

You are way too easy. Why?

 

[jreelawg]

I would like to hear a convincing argument that blocking humanitarian aid, including medical supplies, doesn't amount to collective punishment. And this includes, not only the attack on the dignity, but also the on going blockade all together.

 

[jreelawg]

For one thing, it is wrong to just indiscriminately attack people on international waters.

It was not indiscriminate.


No. The ship was running.


What evidence did the Isrealis have that the boat did not contain arms? None.

You are way too easy. Why?

By all first hand accounts of the passengers of the ship, no warning was issued, and they were hit in the night by a ship who had turned it's lights off. Meanwhile the other ships surrounding them had their lights on. Unless the CNN reporter is a lier, then it seams near impossible that they were not intentionally rammed.

 

[jreelawg]

For one thing, it is wrong to just indiscriminately attack people on international waters.

It was not indiscriminate.No. The ship was running.What evidence did the Isrealis have that the boat did not contain arms? None.

You are way too easy. Why?

That is kind of pathetic logic. I suppose this is how attacks can be justified no matter what or who is attacked. Where is the evidence that they were not...? Please. Where is evidence that they were? I guess they must have thought for a few moments, and decided, they are a ship, and they are in the water, they could be carrying weapons...

 

[russ_watters]

I would like to hear a convincing argument that blocking humanitarian aid, including medical supplies, doesn't amount to collective punishment.

Well, assuming in this case the Israelis knew the boat contained humanitarian aid...

Humanitarian aid is often used by dictators and criminal regimes for their own profit and as leverage against their own citizens. Hamas does this:

Jordan says Hamas seizes aid covoy sent to Gaza," by Suleiman al-Khalidi for Reuters (thanks to Sr. Soph):

AMMAN, Feb 9 (Reuters) - Jordan said on Saturday the Islamist Palestinian group Hamas has confiscated a convoy of humanitarian aid sent to people living under an Israeli blockade in the Gaza Strip.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019880.php

Hamas is as the Taliban was in 1991. They should be given the same treatment.

 

[russ_watters]

That is kind of pathetic logic. I suppose this is how attacks can be justified no matter what or who is attacked. Where is the evidence that they were not...? Please. Where is evidence that they were? I guess they must have thought for a few moments, and decided, they are a ship, and they are in the water, they could be carrying weapons...

Really, this lack of logic you are displaying is mind-boggling to me. How can you not see how absurd your way of thinking is here? *It's a blockade!* <-reread that again until it sinks in. That means no one gets through and it also means that to challenge the blockade is automatically a threat. How are you not getting this?

 

[Phrak]

For one thing, it is wrong to just indiscriminately attack people on international waters.

That is kind of pathetic logic. I suppose this is how attacks can be justified no matter what or who is attacked. Where is the evidence that they were not...? Please. Where is evidence that they were? I guess they must have thought for a few moments, and decided, they are a ship, and they are in the water, they could be carrying weapons...

I would like to know why you seem to be so inhumane that you don't care whether or not the boat was running arms to kill people (humans, as you may refer to them). Use CNN as a reference. They don't seem to care either.

 

[jreelawg]

If nothing comes into Gaza, then where will it come from? Whether or not Hamas may or may not profit off of imports, you can't deny the people of the country the possibility of somehow receiving things as simple as band aids.

I could also argue that leaving a civilian alive is a risk because they may be recruited by Hamas.

 

[Cyrus]

I could also argue that leaving a civilian alive is a risk because they may be recruited by Hamas.

And you should just stop posting right...about...now.

 

[jreelawg]

Please, deny my logic if you can.

I would like to know why you are so inhumane that you don't care whether the boat was running arms to kill others, or not.

I think you know I meant that trying to sink a boat of people smuggling arms would be fine.

 

[jreelawg]

And you should just stop posting right...about...now.

Before I stop, why don't you address some of my arguments, and let me know where you stand.

1) Is it right to blockade a country (not permitting entry) of Medical Supplies?

how about that one for starters.

 

[jreelawg]

For one thing, it is wrong to just indiscriminately attack people on international waters. Second, they could have boarded the ship and searched them for weapons. Third, it is in-humane to block humanitarian aid. Fourth, it is sad that for months, people have to try and smuggle medical supplies, food, and fuel into their own land.

It would be fine if they stopped and searched people, arrested weapons smugglers, and confinscated weapons, but to not let people bring in fuel, or medical supplies seams a little harsh.

Where did I imply that I was cool with letting in weapons?

Putting words in other peoples mouths and using deception is a sure sign of a bias.

 

[jreelawg]

I would like to know why you seem to be so inhumane that you don't care whether or not the boat was running arms to kill people (humans, as you may refer to them). Use CNN as a reference. They don't seem to care either.

You know how else people die, victims of bombings who can't get medical treatment because medical supplies aren't permitted into your country.

 

[Cyrus]

You know how else people die, victims of bombings who can't get medical treatment because medical supplies aren't permitted into your country.

This is bad argument to make. They are in need of medical supplies as a result of their own actions. The blockade didn't injure them.

 

[Phrak]

You know how else people die, victims of bombings who can't get medical treatment because medical supplies aren't permitted into your country.

I see we have common ground. What would your course of action be? You are on a blockading patrol boat. You have a boat attempting to make port in Gaza. You don't know if it is transporting arms or medicine or wrist watches. What would you do if it won't stop for a search, but bolts?

 

[jreelawg]

This is bad argument to make. They are in need of medical supplies as a result of their own actions. The blockade didn't injure them.

Look, I'm part Jewish myself. I don't wish harm to Israelis, I don't wish harm to the people of Gaza. I do feel Israel has the right to try and stop Hamas from attacking them. I do think that a blockade is ok if necessary, but only to try and keep weapons out, not to keep food, fuel, and medicine out. If anything, jewish people should be speaking up when Israel does things that give them as a people a bad name. It is not in the interest of Jewish people for Israel to do things that bring about so much racism against them.

 

[drankin]

Last night I watched a PBS interview with the Isreali-American Ambassador, and he said that they have been sending ambulances and medical supplies into Gaza in between strikes. Bringing Palistinian wounded into Isreal for treatment. Of course, this isn't on the news channels, it's doesn't exploit the choas needed for ratings.

 

[jreelawg]

I see we have common ground. What would your course of action be? You are on a blockading patrol boat. You have a boat attempting to make port in Gaza. You don't know if it is transporting arms or medicine or wrist watches. What would you do if it won't stop for a search, but bolts?

You still haven't addressed the fact that Gaza, is, and has been, for months, deprived of medical supplies. If they had boarded it and discovered it was aid, they still would not have let the supplies enter.

 

[Phrak]

You still haven't addressed the fact that Gaza, is, and has been, for months, deprived of medical supplies. If they had boarded it and discovered it was aid, they still would not have let the supplies enter.

Gaza has a common boarder with Egypt. Is Egypt embargoing the west bank too? You don't get it. So called Humanitarians are in love with feeling good about their humanitarianism. People are a vehicle. They didn't need a boat to deliver drugs; they needed a boat so they could be embargoed and get indignately self-rightious abou it. These are some nasty-*ss folks.

 

[jreelawg]

Gaza has a common boarder with Egypt. Is Egypt embargoing the west bank too?

Yes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7655184.stm

 

[Phrak]

The following in {} is an honest misquote by jreelawg:

{Originally Posted by Phrak:
"This is bad argument to make. They are in need of medical supplies as a result of their own actions. The blockade didn't injure them."}

In the frantic sparing between us, she/he mixed up some quotation marks.

 

[Phrak]

Yes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7655184.stm

This article says something about some medial supplies embargoed on Gaza. Do you have something more concrete? I'm searching the Web.

 

[Phrak]

I'm coming up empty on "Gaza embargo medial", "Gaza embargo full", and stuff like it. See you Dec 31, maybe."

 

[tiny-tim]

"I should apologise?"

How about the words "International Waters"?

Blockades, either military, or economic, are recognised and legitimate under international law.

Blockade (provided sufficient humanitarian supplies are allowed) is a non-lethal method of warfare, to be used either instead of lethal force or in addition to it.

Maritime blockades almost always take place in international waters … why do you expect Israel to follow a different rule?

Is it right to blockade a country (not permitting entry) of Medical Supplies?

how about that one for starters.

You still haven't addressed the fact that Gaza, is, and has been, for months, deprived of medical supplies.

That's simply not true.

Israel has been continuously allowing sufficient supplies of both medical aid (and food and power supplies) throughout the blockade.

Israel (and Egypt, remember) has kept Gaza short of these items … sometimes supplies have almost run out … but has never allowed them to actually run out.

And yes, a blockading country is perfectly entitled to stop medical aid … it can insist that all imports (including medical aid) go through only when and where and in the amounts that it allows … provided of course that it does allow enough.

Also …

Last night I watched a PBS interview with the Isreali-American Ambassador, and he said that they have been sending ambulances and medical supplies into Gaza in between strikes. Bringing Palistinian wounded into Isreal for treatment. Of course, this isn't on the news channels, it's doesn't exploit the choas needed for ratings.

… and Egypt has done the same.

I never tried to deny the existence of any racism, I only think that the term anti-semitism only applying to certain semites and not others doesn't make sense. I demand you say your sorry for accusing me of racism for simply posting a definition of a word from the dictionary.

"I should apologise?"

I did not actually accuse you of racism … I accused you of helping to deny the existence of anti-semitism as a form of racism …

To say "both sides are semites" (meaning both Arabs and Jews) is to deny the existence of anti-semitism as a form of racism.

You're still doing it …

insisting on a general definition of "semite" so as to help deny the existence of anti-semitism as a form of racism

And my accusation was not "for simply posting a definition of a word from the dictionary" …

it was for posting a definition of a word ("semite") when nobody had used it

while not posting a definition of the word which had been used ("anti-semitic"), which would have completely demolished your argument.

"anti-semitism" (and "anti-semitic") has always only referred to Jews (and still does) … "semite" is a later word whose meaning has broadened …

this is an tactic of anti-semitic racists who, when accused of anti-semitism, re-define it to include all "descendants of Shem", thereby including the Ishmaelites who of course are the modern Arabs, so that they can say "Well, I'm certainly not anti-Arab, so by definition I can't be anti-semitic".

"I should apologise?"