News4 mins ago
War Crimes ? What Is The Point
un vote on gaza war crimes
if they have a good sniff round and find israel guilty nothing will happen as they have never taken any notice of any un resolutions against them in the past
> Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calls vote to open inquiry a "travesty" <
> Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni called the Human Rights Council "anti-Israel," according to the BBC <
> The U.S. voted against the resolution <
so why should things change now ?
http:// mashabl e.com/2 014/07/ 23/un-w ar-crim es-gaza /
if they have a good sniff round and find israel guilty nothing will happen as they have never taken any notice of any un resolutions against them in the past
> Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calls vote to open inquiry a "travesty" <
> Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni called the Human Rights Council "anti-Israel," according to the BBC <
> The U.S. voted against the resolution <
so why should things change now ?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by DrFilth. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Yes, I recall the flotilla 'attack'.
Turns out that not everything was as it seemed though, was it?:
http:// en.wiki pedia.o rg/wiki /Gaza_f lotilla _raid
On 2 August 2010, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced that the U.N. would conduct an investigation of the incident. The report was published on 2 September 2011 after being delayed, reportedly to allow Israel and Turkey to continue reconciliation talks. The report found that the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza was legal, and that there were "serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH". The report also found that Israel's army used excessive force while the flotilla was still in international waters, and concluded that the degree of force used against the Mavi Marmara was "excessive and unreasonable" and that the way Israel treated detained crew members violated international human rights law.
The government of Israel alleged that the flotilla was organized as a provocation or media stunt and that a hard core of about 40 IHH activists were prepared from the beginning for a violent confrontation. The New York Times, in an editorial, said, "At least some of the activists on the lead ship, the Mavi Marmara, were seeking a confrontation – and got one."
So both sides at fault, not just the Israeli's? I recall footage of several soldiers roping onto the ships who were attacked with knives and iron bars as they did so.
Turns out that not everything was as it seemed though, was it?:
http://
On 2 August 2010, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced that the U.N. would conduct an investigation of the incident. The report was published on 2 September 2011 after being delayed, reportedly to allow Israel and Turkey to continue reconciliation talks. The report found that the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza was legal, and that there were "serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH". The report also found that Israel's army used excessive force while the flotilla was still in international waters, and concluded that the degree of force used against the Mavi Marmara was "excessive and unreasonable" and that the way Israel treated detained crew members violated international human rights law.
The government of Israel alleged that the flotilla was organized as a provocation or media stunt and that a hard core of about 40 IHH activists were prepared from the beginning for a violent confrontation. The New York Times, in an editorial, said, "At least some of the activists on the lead ship, the Mavi Marmara, were seeking a confrontation – and got one."
So both sides at fault, not just the Israeli's? I recall footage of several soldiers roping onto the ships who were attacked with knives and iron bars as they did so.
> since Israel’s conquest of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. During that period Israel has unequivocally demonstrated that it does not want peace in exchange for territory. Its insistence on expelling Palestinians who oppose the occupation and on establishing Jewish settlements in the occupied territories are only the latest manifestations of its desire to retain them. Equally important in revealing its true policy is Israel’s successful record of resisting American and other peace initiatives over the years. <
> The result is that Israel has managed to retain what it has wanted most: East Jerusalem and the West Bank. After so many diplomatic initiatives, it seems fair to conclude Israel does not want peace on any terms but its own.
An end to expulsions is only the latest demand of the international community on Israel, whose defiance goes back to its very beginnings. There remain on the books of the United Nations a collection of resolutions criticizing Israel unmatched by the record of any other nation.
These resolutions, which now number 66
> The result is that Israel has managed to retain what it has wanted most: East Jerusalem and the West Bank. After so many diplomatic initiatives, it seems fair to conclude Israel does not want peace on any terms but its own.
An end to expulsions is only the latest demand of the international community on Israel, whose defiance goes back to its very beginnings. There remain on the books of the United Nations a collection of resolutions criticizing Israel unmatched by the record of any other nation.
These resolutions, which now number 66
Yes they should adhere to UN resolutions. But that is just a convenient subject changer for hysterical commentators who themselves have no alternative answer to what Hamas are doing. The rights and wrongs are of cold comfort to those being slain by the effects of Hamas's dogma.
I've anwered your question, Now tell me what do you think Israel should do when hamas refuses to cease fire?
I've anwered your question, Now tell me what do you think Israel should do when hamas refuses to cease fire?
> Yes they should adhere to UN resolutions. <
r1 it has taken you ages to give me that answer as i have asked you a few times in the past
> Now tell me what do you think Israel should do when hamas refuses to cease fire? <
we will have to see if the hamas mob carry on after they get their land back and lift the blockade
there must be lots of people who want revenge for lost loved ones murdered by the israelis
sorry that should read killed
r1 it has taken you ages to give me that answer as i have asked you a few times in the past
> Now tell me what do you think Israel should do when hamas refuses to cease fire? <
we will have to see if the hamas mob carry on after they get their land back and lift the blockade
there must be lots of people who want revenge for lost loved ones murdered by the israelis
sorry that should read killed
> The five other ships in the flotilla employed passive resistance, which was suppressed without major incident, although many of the passengers on board all ships were beaten, some ending up with broken bones. The ships were towed to Israel, where all passengers were detained and deported. <
ChillDoubt so that is one ship the other five ships which had peaceful people ended up getting battered and some had broken bones
what would you have done in international waters just stood there and smiled while they battered the fluff out of you
r1 hamas has said it will stop if they agree to end the blockade and give them their land back
i will re-post what is above
> The result is that Israel has managed to retain what it has wanted most: East Jerusalem and the West Bank. After so many diplomatic initiatives, it seems fair to conclude Israel does not want peace on any terms but its own.
An end to expulsions is only the latest demand of the international community on Israel, whose defiance goes back to its very beginnings. There remain on the books of the United Nations a collection of resolutions criticizing Israel unmatched by the record of any other nation.
These resolutions, which now number 66 <
if you ignore the problem how will you ever solve the fluffing problem
if and it is a big if the israelis move off the land then the hamas mob should stop
yes or no back to you
i will re-post what is above
> The result is that Israel has managed to retain what it has wanted most: East Jerusalem and the West Bank. After so many diplomatic initiatives, it seems fair to conclude Israel does not want peace on any terms but its own.
An end to expulsions is only the latest demand of the international community on Israel, whose defiance goes back to its very beginnings. There remain on the books of the United Nations a collection of resolutions criticizing Israel unmatched by the record of any other nation.
These resolutions, which now number 66 <
if you ignore the problem how will you ever solve the fluffing problem
if and it is a big if the israelis move off the land then the hamas mob should stop
yes or no back to you
The reason there are comparatively so few casualties on the Israeli side is because they have a sophisticated interception shield which few missiles can penetrate, whereas every Israeli missile hits a target.
I wonder why Hamas keeps up the attack with so few results and allowing the Israelis to quote the high number of missiles being fired at them .
Surely the images on TV last night of all those wounded children must bring a change of opinion to the world at large and to the Israelis themselves.
I wonder why Hamas keeps up the attack with so few results and allowing the Israelis to quote the high number of missiles being fired at them .
Surely the images on TV last night of all those wounded children must bring a change of opinion to the world at large and to the Israelis themselves.
We both know that Israel is not going to pull out, yes I agree a squillion percent they are in the wrong but we must play the hand as it is not as we'd like it to be.
Please answer the question, given the current situation should Israel simply absorb the strikes?, Yes or no. I answerd yours, don't make me do Paxman.
Please answer the question, given the current situation should Israel simply absorb the strikes?, Yes or no. I answerd yours, don't make me do Paxman.
> Please answer the question, given the current situation should Israel simply absorb the strikes?, Yes or no <
yes because most of the hamas rockets are shot down in flight , they get one out of two hundred to do some damage if they are lucky and they must be running out of the bloody things
agree to the terms and stop the killing for now
yes because most of the hamas rockets are shot down in flight , they get one out of two hundred to do some damage if they are lucky and they must be running out of the bloody things
agree to the terms and stop the killing for now
"yes because most of the hamas rockets are shot down in flight , they get one out of two hundred to do some damage if they are lucky and they must be running out of the bloody things " - so futile then wouldn't you say? every time we lob a pebble over the fence a boulder comes back, now I don't know about you but I think I'd stop lobbing the pebbles.
PS can you show me an example of where you have asked me about this before because I don't recall. I have in the past many times agreed that Israel should give back the occupied land.
PS can you show me an example of where you have asked me about this before because I don't recall. I have in the past many times agreed that Israel should give back the occupied land.
But there isn't a debate though is there because the 'Israel' camp just inform us that we have to 'deal the hand we're dealt' despite some of them agreeing that Israel is in fact in the wrong. How does the world ever improve with such complacency? The way we are travelling now in allowing Israel to commit crimes on this scale will come back to bite us all one day. This is not a 2 state solution.
http:// www.rad iondadu rto.org /wp-con tent/up loads/2 014/07/ BtN-Dq5 IUAAQyZ N.jpg
http://