Perhaps Israel should, in turn, countersue Hamas for all the death and destruction resulting from the rocket attacks launched from Gaza.

Those Turks were lucky to be let off back to their country without being prosecuted and imprisoned.
Ergodan is playing to the Islamists and their strength in Turkey is growing all the time.
Ataturk would not approve, in fact he would be seething.

Oh look, the vicious murderers are pretending to be all legal and political again, how cute.

Originally Posted by Don

Perhaps Israel should, in turn, countersue Hamas for all the death and destruction resulting from the rocket attacks launched from Gaza.

Which in turn were started off because of the inhumane treatment that the Gaza Palestinians received at the hands of Israel during years of blockading, who are determined to claim ownership of the territory despite it never having been their land.

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, during the last 10 years 8,864 Israelis and 39,019 Palestinians have been injured, 1,072 Israelis and at least 6,348 Palestinians have been killed. Of those killed, 124 Israeli children have been killed by the Palestinians and 1,441 Palestinian children have been killed by the Israelis. Just thought I'd point out one of the imbalances which you, Barry and DC seem quite happy with......

Originally Posted by Midas

Which in turn were started off because of the inhumane treatment that the Gaza Palestinians received at the hands of Israel during years of blockading, who are determined to claim ownership of the territory despite it never having been their land.

Hamas violence started well before the blockade. As I recall the blockade was implemented after Hamas' election, which essentially turned Gaza into an enemy state. Furthermore Israel claims no ownership over Gaza.

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, during the last 10 years 8,864 Israelis and 39,019 Palestinians have been injured, 1,072 Israelis and at least 6,348 Palestinians have been killed. Of those killed, 124 Israeli children have been killed by the Palestinians and 1,441 Palestinian children have been killed by the Israelis. Just thought I'd point out one of the imbalances which you, Barry and DC seem quite happy with......

And how many civilians have died in Afghanistan and Iraq in the last ten years? The imbalance is logical because A: Israel has more weapons with more power (hence more weaponry being deployed against the Palestinians), B: Hamas uses Human shields with impunity, thereby increasing civilian casualties, C: Hamas and other terror groups are largely urban based, meaning more civilians in harms way, whereas Israel tries to keep it's own civilians out of harms way, as oppossed to Hamas which moves Palestinains into the way, and D: 'Civilian' is a fairly ambiguous term when talking about insurgent groups, Ahmed the baker 'civilian' may in fact fire rockets from soccer fields in his free time.

Originally Posted by DC

Hamas violence started well before the blockade. As I recall the blockade was implemented after Hamas' election, which essentially turned Gaza into an enemy state. Furthermore Israel claims no ownership over Gaza.

A slight but important correction - Hamas was formed in 1987 during the intifada after Israel's occupation of both the West Bank and Gaza. Israel remained in occupation in Gaza until 2005 and would dearly love to regain control of the territory.

And how many civilians have died in Afghanistan and Iraq in the last ten years? The imbalance is logical because A: Israel has more weapons with more power (hence more weaponry being deployed against the Palestinians), B: Hamas uses Human shields with impunity, thereby increasing civilian casualties, C: Hamas and other terror groups are largely urban based, meaning more civilians in harms way, whereas Israel tries to keep it's own civilians out of harms way, as oppossed to Hamas which moves Palestinains into the way, and D: 'Civilian' is a fairly ambiguous term when talking about insurgent groups, Ahmed the baker 'civilian' may in fact fire rockets from soccer fields in his free time.

The situation in Afghanistan and Iraq is rather a red herring...... Given that Gaza is a densely populated territory there's very little that those within Hamas who do attack Israel, which I'm not condoning in the slightest, can do to avoid having the 'human shield' label attached to them. But regardless of the rights and wrongs of what's happening now, the whole situation boils down to just one thing; since it was formed in 1947 Israel has constantly invaded the surrounding countries in order to try to gain more land, period.

Originally Posted by Midas

A slight but important correction - Hamas was formed in 1987 during the intifada after Israel's occupation of both the West Bank and Gaza. Israel remained in occupation in Gaza until 2005 and would dearly love to regain control of the territory.

Exactly, Hamas was waging war well before the blockade. But you have no evidence to say Israel wishes to recontrol Gaza.

The situation in Afghanistan and Iraq is rather a red herring......

How? Allied forces have killed thousands of civilians in their war on terror.

Given that Gaza is a densely populated territory there's very little that those within Hamas who do attack Israel, which I'm not condoning in the slightest, can do to avoid having the 'human shield' label attached to them.

There is a lot they could do. How about not hiding arms in Mosques? How about not using sports fields and playgrounds as rocket launch sites? How about not using apartment buildings (with the residents still living there) as spotting towers? Hamas deliberately put civilians in danger every single day by conducting their operations in and around civilian areas and buildings. They could build underground bunkers away from civilian areas to hide weapons, they could move their rocket sites to places away from civilians, as they could find new areas to spot from, yet it is in their interests to use human shields.

But regardless of the rights and wrongs of what's happening now, the whole situation boils down to just one thing; since it was formed in 1947 Israel has constantly invaded the surrounding countries in order to try to gain more land, period.

Only after being invaded itself. This war was started by the Arabs, whichever way you look at it.

EU to raise pressure on Israel over Gaza blockade

* Ministers to seek immediate lifting of Gaza blockade
* Blockade seen as counterproductive to Israeli security

By Luke Baker
Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:33am GMT

BRUSSELS, June 11 (Reuters) - European Union foreign ministers will call on Israel next week to lift a three-year-old blockade of Gaza which they describe as "unacceptable and counterproductive" -- including to Israel's security.

In a draft statement prepared for a meeting on Monday, the foreign ministers will condemn the use of violence during Israel's operation to stop a flotilla of aid ships reaching Gaza in which Israeli forces killed nine Turks.

They will also call for a "credible, impartial and independent" investigation.

The EU also says it is prepared to contribute to a new mechanism for getting goods in and out of Gaza, which would be based on more regular land access and possibly sea crossings to the coastal territory of 1.5 million people.

"The policy of closure is unacceptable and counterproductive, including from the point of view of Israel's security," a copy of the draft seen by Reuters reads.

"The EU calls for a change of policy leading to an unfettered flow of humanitarian aid, commercial goods and persons" into Gaza in line with a U.N. resolution.

Israel has maintained a blockade on Gaza since mid-2007, when the Hamas militant movement took full control of the territory from its rival Fatah, a year after winning a parliamentary election.

Israel says the measures are designed to prevent arms being smuggled to Hamas and other militant groups.

CALL FOR POLICY CHANGE

The EU is the biggest supplier of aid to the Palestinian territories, with member states and the executive European Commission providing about 600 million euros ($722.3 million) a year. The EU is pushing to free up trade with the territories.

In an opinion piece published in European papers on Friday, the foreign ministers of France, Italy and Spain said Israel needed to turn its blockade policy on its head by opening the borders and blocking some listed items, rather than completely closing the borders and allowing in only a few goods.

The full story available from here : EU to raise pressure on Israel over Gaza blockade | News by Country | Reuters

Originally Posted by Midas

Which in turn were started off because of the inhumane treatment that the Gaza Palestinians received at the hands of Israel during years of blockading, who are determined to claim ownership of the territory despite it never having been their land.

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, during the last 10 years 8,864 Israelis and 39,019 Palestinians have been injured, 1,072 Israelis and at least 6,348 Palestinians have been killed. Of those killed, 124 Israeli children have been killed by the Palestinians and 1,441 Palestinian children have been killed by the Israelis. Just thought I'd point out one of the imbalances which you, Barry and DC seem quite happy with......

Israel and Egypt both blockade arms to Gaza, both allow humanitarian aid. Also I apparently have to point out the obvious, war is not supposed to be balanced. I take no joy in death for anyone, If Hamas would abandon their sworn mission of the complete and total destruction of Israel, peace would have a chance.

Israel is not in the EU, Midas, and the EU, frankly need to mind their own business.
When Israel starts telling the EU how to do business, I'll think it OK for the EU to do the same.

The topic is likely to degenerate into the usual disinformations about Israel, which have been done to death on this forum.
I don't believe that anyone on the Marmara has a chance in hell of a successful prosecution against the Israelis.
They were enforcing a legal blockade.
There was no other way to stop the ship.
The other ships including the Rachel Corrie were no problem, this proves that Israel were happy to act peacefully, and only reacted on the Marmara because they were being attacked by Islamists.

Israel were very nice to let these people go:
'Israel freed top terrorists caught on flotilla' - Israel News, Ynetnews

Originally Posted by Barry

Israel is not in the EU, Midas, and the EU, frankly need to mind their own business.
When Israel starts telling the EU how to do business, I'll think it OK for the EU to do the same.

With respect Barry, that's taking a very partisan stance unless it's also accompanied by a statement to the effect that the USA should mind their own business over Israel and stop supporting and pouring in billion of dollars worth of military assistance, which dwarfs the hundreds of millions of euros in humanitarian aid that the EU gives to the Palestinians.

The topic is likely to degenerate into the usual disinformations about Israel, which have been done to death on this forum.

Yes, I agree. This is one of those subjects where people seem to be either for Israel or against Israel and in general the opinions on both sides are anything but objective. However having said that, and regardless of all the rights and wrongs on both sides, the whole situation wouldn't have arisen if:

a/ the state of Israel hadn't been formed in the first place, or at least hadn't been formed in perhaps the worst possible place given the historical hostility between the Jews and Arabs and the fact that the Palestinian people who suffered most in respect of the loss of their territory were never given and equal statehood - however there's absolutely nothing which can be done about that now - and;
b/ if Israel had not repeatedly invaded the countries surrounding the borders which it was accorded in 1947. I accept it had to defend itself after being attacked within days of its formation, however if those borders had been maintained and it had confined itself to them subsequently. Again there's nothing that can be done about that now, but what can be done is for Israel to pull back to those borders, return all captured and settled land to it's original owners and cease all blockades.

If the USA in particular was serious about wanting to resolve the situation and wasn't really more concerned about the consequences to its own ambitions in the region, it could easily force Israel to comply by cutting off all aid, military and otherwise and showing its committed support for the establishment of a Palestinian State along one of the several proposals which have been put forward, including one in 2004 by Clinton.

I don't believe that anyone on the Marmara has a chance in hell of a successful prosecution against the Israelis.
They were enforcing a legal blockade.
There was no other way to stop the ship.
The other ships including the Rachel Corrie were no problem, this proves that Israel were happy to act peacefully, and only reacted on the Marmara because they were being attacked by Islamists.

Israel were very nice to let these people go:
'Israel freed top terrorists caught on flotilla' - Israel News, Ynetnews

Maybe they don't stand a chance, the odds are weighted heavily against them despite the fact that the boarding was carried out in international waters and regardless of the fact that the ships were heading for a war zone, was still technically illegal under international maritime law. As for Israel 'being nice' to the remaining ships, you must know as well as I do that was for one reason and one reason alone; Israel knew public opinion was against them after the first boarding and killings and that the international media spotlight was very much upon them!

Originally Posted by Midas

With respect Barry, that's taking a very partisan stance unless it's also accompanied by a statement to the effect that the USA should mind their own business over Israel and stop supporting and pouring in billion of dollars worth of military assistance, which dwarfs the hundreds of millions of euros in humanitarian aid that the EU gives to the Palestinians.

But it is the USA's business. Israel has and remains the USA's only continuous and reliable ally in the Middle East. Keeping it that way through military assistance (which Israel no longer uses so your point is moot anyway) is both the USA's business and in her interests.

a/ the state of Israel hadn't been formed in the first place, or at least hadn't been formed in perhaps the worst possible place given the historical hostility between the Jews and Arabs and the fact that the Palestinian people who suffered most in respect of the loss of their territory were never given and equal statehood - however there's absolutely nothing which can be done about that now

Unchecked, and indeed encouraged Jewish immigration prior to WWII essentially established the problems. However having said that, you have to remember it was the Ottomans who encouraged Jewish immigration, and that most of the current 'Palestinian' population has no more claim to the land than the Jews do, having arrived at the same time as Jewish investment created new jobs.

b/ if Israel had not repeatedly invaded the countries surrounding the borders which it was accorded in 1947. I accept it had to defend itself after being attacked within days of its formation, however if those borders had been maintained and it had confined itself to them subsequently. Again there's nothing that can be done about that now, but what can be done is for Israel to pull back to those borders, return all captured and settled land to it's original owners and cease all blockades.

My understanding is that you don't just beat off your attempted genociders and then hand their land back so they can have another go in 10 years time. The Arabs got what they deserved when Israel took that land, if they'd wanted to keep it they shouldn't have invaded. It's the equivalent of the Allies taking Germany and then handing back to the Nazis with a 'sorry for the aggression' note attached. What's more that land is now Israel, whichever way you look at it, there is no way that it's going to be returned to the 'rightful owners'. Who are those people anyway? A bunch of stateless in refugee camps? Who owns this house or that farm? Most of the original owners are dead, and their families scattered. If you could somehow move the thousands of Israelis whose homes are on that land without provoking a civil war, then how would you move thousands of other people into that land? These are people who hate Israel, and would have no issue continuing the fight, what's more it probably break down into intra-Palestinian conflicts over land, deepening violence and poverty which of course people would expect Israel to clean up. And what about the billions of dollars of investment Israel has put into that land? Will this new Palestine be indebted to Israel from the start for the infrastructure it has had to buy from Israel? Or should Israel simply burn it all and demolition its buildings, turning it back to the virtually inhabitable desert it was when it was given to the Palestinians in the first place? And what about that deal itself? Israel agreed to those borders sure, but the Palestinians didn't, so the deal fell through. There was never any 'defined borders' because there was never any deal, just an Arab land grab which Israel repelled. Why should Israel honour an agreement that the Palestinians never honoured?

If the USA in particular was serious about wanting to resolve the situation and wasn't really more concerned about the consequences to its own ambitions in the region, it could easily force Israel to comply by cutting off all aid, military and otherwise and showing its committed support for the establishment of a Palestinian State along one of the several proposals which have been put forward, including one in 2004 by Clinton.

These days Israel barely relies on any US aid, military or otherwise. In fact I'm not even sure it takes any. The aid is available, yes, but I don't think Israel needs to use it.

As for Israel 'being nice' to the remaining ships, you must know as well as I do that was for one reason and one reason alone; Israel knew public opinion was against them after the first boarding and killings and that the international media spotlight was very much upon them!

Yet you propose to isolate Israel from any international public opinion or spotlight? What incentive has it got to 'be nice' then? Personally I believe Israel didn't want to harm those activists in any way. Stop them, yes, but remember it was the so called 'peace activists' who attacked Israeli troops with knives and metal rods, the soldiers didn't board with intention of killing people, but it seems the protesters came with the intention of doing just that.

Originally Posted by Midas

... the fact that the boarding was carried out in international waters and regardless of the fact that the ships were heading for a war zone, was still technically illegal under international maritime law.

Under international law, Israel has the right to protect the lives of its civilians from Hamas attacks. Consequently, it has undertaken measures to defend itself, including the imposition of a maritime blockade to curb Hamas rearmament. Israel cannot allow a sea-corridor to open to Gaza, a corridor which would allow weapons and terrorists to freely enter the Strip.
(MFA)

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994.

PART III, SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
1. (a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
2. (b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
3. (c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
4. (d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
5. (e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
6. (f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

Midas, perhaps you would like to retract your accusation of illegality.

The blockade is legal, as enforced as part of the Quartet's insistence that Hamas must renounce terrorism and recognise the State of Israel.
Tony Blair and Spain have in the past couple of days been speaking against the blockade, which, as an envoy on the one part, and being apart of the Quartet on the other shows that Blair and Zapatero really need to get their acts together and start singing off the same hymn sheet.

After many years of trying to understand the problems of the Middle east,the Arab, Jew,Arab other types ,Christian,other Arabs conflicts I conceed I am no wiser now than I was 30 years ago. Whilst the driving force behind these conflicts is religious fanaticism and pure hate for anyone not of like mind there can be no peace.

I therefore conclude that the best course of action would be to abandon the whole region to themselves,cut off all trade,aid ,commerce and political interactions. Repatriate all religious fanatics close the borders and leave the fruitcakes to their fate.

Originally Posted by Barry

Under international law, Israel has the right to protect the lives of its civilians from Hamas attacks. Consequently, it has undertaken measures to defend itself, including the imposition of a maritime blockade to curb Hamas rearmament. Israel cannot allow a sea-corridor to open to Gaza, a corridor which would allow weapons and terrorists to freely enter the Strip.
(MFA)

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994.

PART III, SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
1. (a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
2. (b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
3. (c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
4. (d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
5. (e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
6. (f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

Midas, perhaps you would like to retract your accusation of illegality.

The blockade is legal, as enforced as part of the Quartet's insistence that Hamas must renounce terrorism and recognise the State of Israel.
Tony Blair and Spain have in the past couple of days been speaking against the blockade, which, as an envoy on the one part, and being apart of the Quartet on the other shows that Blair and Zapatero really need to get their acts together and start singing off the same hymn sheet.

Sorry Barry, but I'm certainly not going to retract my assertion that the blockade is illegal!

Taken at face value what you quote from the San Remo Manual is quite correct, however after some further research, in the case of the blockade of Gaza there are several other clauses in that same manual which indicate it is illegal.

Part V Section II (95) states that a blockade "must be effective and cannot let certain vessels in while rejecting others". Israel has, since the start of the blockade, permitted certain ships to enter while not permitting others. Of the numerous trips staged by the Free Gaza Movement, several earlier trips have been permitted to pass through the blockade where as others were not, seemingly selected at random. All of these ships were carrying flags of "neutral states". This inconsistency is contrary to Part V Section II (100 & 101) which states that "the blockading party must treat ships of neutrally flagged states equally", and is a clear indication that the nature of the blockade is not legal.

Also the blockade is in violation of Part V Section II (102) of the San Remo Manual which prohibits blockades that:

a) have the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential to its survival; or

b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

This can be evidenced quite clearly from a statement by Dov Wiesglass, the Israeli official and aid to Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who stated that the intention of the blockade was "to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger." Hardly a military objective and likely to cause far more damage to the civilian population than a strictly military blockade would have done - just 75 truckloads of food and medical supplies a day for over 1.3 million people are allowed though into Gaza.

The Israel blockade is also in violation of Part V Section II 106 (c) which states that "the zone of the blockade shall not exceed the area "strictly required by military necessity and the principles of proportionality." Israel has enforced a blockade around the 20 mile mark for incoming ships, like those which are part of the Freedom Flotilla, but it has also strictly enforced it at the 3 mile mark against Gaza's own fishermen, devastating their livelihoods out of no military necessity whatsoever.

Finally the San Remo Manual only applies to "belligerent states" and "neutral states" as clearly indicated in Section IV. Gaza, which is part of the Palestinian Occupied Territories along with the West Bank, is not a state, due in large part, rather ironically, to Israel's own intransigence and the foot-dragging of the UN over the last 60 years.

You might claim these are just technicalities, but if so, they're the kind of technicalities which render laws invalid.

Originally Posted by DC

But it is the USA's business. Israel has and remains the USA's only continuous and reliable ally in the Middle East. Keeping it that way through military assistance (which Israel no longer uses so your point is moot anyway) is both the USA's business and in her interests.

The USA keeps a very large hold on Israel because it's part of their long term strategic plan to have US dominated 'corridor' of influence right the way from the Mediterranean Sea to as close to China as possible, most likely through Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, only, and unsurprisingly, they're meeting with much more resistance than anticipated.

Quite where you got that bit of misinformation about Israel no longer using American military aid from I don't know, but during 2009 the US provided Israel with approximately (the final figures aren't available yet) $3 billion worth of military aid according to the US Congressional Research Service’s “U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel”, a sum due to increase until at least 2013. Apparently contrary to normal U.S. policy, Israel is allowed to use over 25% of this military aid to develop and purchase equipment from Israeli manufacturers, a massive subsidy for their own armaments businesses. Under various congressional acts if the remaining 75% wasn't being returned to the USA by way of purchases from their own military and armaments businesses - war's good business for America - that aid would stop. As recently as May 14th, Obama went to Congress to get them to approve a further £205 million worth of military aid to Israel to enable them to increase the effectiveness of their anti-missile shield - they've apparently already spent last year's $3 billion.

Sorry, but some more legalese coming thanks to my daughter's research. There is a growing concern, certainly outside the US, that US military aid to Israel violates both it's own domestic and international law. According to the International Law Commission, "A State which aids or assists another State in the commission of an internationally wrongful act by the latter is internationally responsible for doing so if: (a) that State does so with knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act; and (b) the act would be internationally wrongful if committed by that State" - (Article 16 of the International Law Commission, "Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts," (2001) which were commended by the General Assembly, A/RES/56/83 to be precise). In other words if you knowingly help someone commit a crime, you are also equally liable for that crime. The International Law Commission clearly states that international law also "prohibits conduct that involves patterns of blatant abuse and complicity in such a pattern of blatant abuse".

Section 502B of the US Foreign Assistance Act stipulates that "no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights" and section 4 of the Arms Export Control Act authorises the supply of US military equipment and training only for "lawful purposes of internal security, legitimate self-defense, or participation in United Nations peacekeeping operations or other operations consistent with the UN Charter".

Based on those and a number of other international and domestic US laws, and the Goldstone Report (which was commissioned by the U.N.'s Human Rights Council) finding that Israel committed grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention and has been responsible for repeated and blatent abuse - Obama's government is trying hard to supress this report in order that recommendations on Israel's conduct in the Gaza war, and hence the US's complicity in them, never reach the International Criminal Court - and the US government has undoubtedly violated its responsibility not to participate in the internationally wrongful acts of another state in providing military aid and the transfer of arms to Israel. Strange isn't it how the US is so quick to pick up on the findings of independant international reports when the conclusions suit their own aims and objectives, however when they are critical of the US, even obliquely such as in the Goldstone Report, they go to great lengths to ignore or supress them! Anyone would think they have something to hide.

It looks like Israel has agreed in principle to change its current approach to the blockade of Gaza and reopen several crossing points to permit more goods entry into the territory following the latest organisation, the International Committee for the Red Cross, deeming their tactics as illegal.

It also seems they've bowed to pressure to include two international observers to their inquiry into the Turkish aid flotilla murders, including Lord Trimble, the former First Minister of Northern Ireland.

We are here again, with Netanyahu allowing the settlement building to resume. All of the Palestinian and Israeli

The sooner the failed experiment that is Israel is forcably disolved as a state, it's European Jewish occupants scattered, and the land given back to the Palestinian and Lebonese Semitic peoples, the better. I hope I live to see it.

Originally Posted by DaveUK

The sooner the failed experiment that is Israel is forcably disolved as a state, it's European Jewish occupants scattered, and the land given back to the Palestinian and Lebonese Semitic peoples, the better. I hope I live to see it.

You won't, because that's a pipe dream, even if Israel wasn't recognised by virtually every country.

Originally Posted by DaveUK

The sooner the failed experiment that is Israel is forcably disolved as a state, it's European Jewish occupants scattered, and the land given back to the Palestinian and Lebonese Semitic peoples, the better. I hope I live to see it.

Whilst I agree with your sentiments Dave, I have to say that DC is probably correct, it won't happen, especially whilst the USA continues to pour billions of dollars into Israel. From any economic perspective this is pointless, especially as the latest UN Development Report ranks Israel at number 15 out of 169 countries, but then we all know that whatever their pretence, the USA simply wants Israel to succeed so as they have a large military foot in the Middle East as part of their own empire building aspirations.

Originally Posted by DaveUK

The sooner the failed experiment that is Israel is forcably disolved as a state, it's European Jewish occupants scattered, and the land given back to the Palestinian and Lebonese Semitic peoples, the better. I hope I live to see it.

Absolutely, you want some more ethnic cleansing, genocide and soap making don't you?
You just hate those Jews, don't you, Dave?

Originally Posted by Barry

Absolutely, you want some more ethnic cleansing, genocide and soap making don't you?
You just hate those Jews, don't you, Dave?

I dunno if he hates Jews, but he sure hates all those Israeli men, women and children and is definitely pro-war.