Thread: Israeli navy opens fire on international aid convoy for Gaza : At least ten dead

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Of course, the Germans actually picked that fight. The Palestinians didn't.

Yes, they are not responsible for anything, "pure as the driven snow"....

Originally Posted by fishjoel

If my homeland was run by terrorists that wanted to commit genocide I would not fight for them.

:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by stillalive

No they did not.
It took til the french unrests in 59 ere de Gaulle realised, Germany was not an enemy anymore.
For most Brits we still are.
Read their papers.

France and Britain were absolutely against reunification up to the day Gorby said we´ll do it.

We made it despite.

Well, it certainly wasn't altruistic. But the english, french, and the US wanted peace at that specific time did they not?

As you seem to agree, we cannot say that about Israel (or Hamas). Just to clarify, i am sure there are many Israelis and many Palestinians who want nothing more than peace. It is the powerful ideologues on either side who cannot tolerate it.

Andrew

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Maybe, but i presume they probably had a sense of responsibility and guilt. This is something the Palestinians would not have. From their perspective they are just paying the price for the Jewish desire to have a state of their own.

That actually took a while. But I think all this is beside the point, which is: One can surrender when militarily defeated and still go on to rebuild and live in a peaceful, prosperous country. If it helps you, look at Poland as I suggested the jockey do. We're just repeating the same conversation pram and I already had. Post 847

Would you have condemned them as you do the Palestinians for resisting?

If they were murdering innocent civilians, I would certainly be put off. I don't condemn the Palestinians, but I think they have chosen poorly. They have wasted 60 years and counting.

Or the current Israeli government would just keep it going, based on the argument that they would just rearm and continue the resistance anyway.

Which do you think is more likely to end the current impasse over the blockade?

(a) Israel lifting the restriction on jam and chocolate; or
(b) the release of Gilad Shilat and the immediate cessation of hostilities from Gaza

(and why wouldn't they, in the absence of any genuine move on the part of israel to make way for a Palestinian state).

Continuing their armed campaign would be a futile exercise resulting in the loss of human life ... just as it is now.

Originally Posted by stillalive

If tradition, faith and jewish values are important for you, you have no choice but to fight Zionism.
For Zionists are hellbent on destroying all traditional jewish values.

Perhaps you have mistaken me for a Jew. Jewish values are not important to me other than to whatever extent that they overlap my own. I have plenty of choices, and I have no need or desire to either fight or to promote Zionism. If you feel that you have no choice but to fight Zionism, then I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post.

:: shrug ::

"Der Spiegel" takes a close and negative look at some of the "evidence" that the Israelis have provided to back up their claims about the semi-terrorist backround of parts of the Gaza flotilla :

Gaza 'Peace Activists': A Closer Look at Israel's Terror Accusations - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

You don't think the Germans are biased, do u?

Originally Posted by Moonglow

You don't think the Germans are biased, do u?

If you want to refute the piece, then do it based on facts. Otherwise a discussion makes no sense.........

Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor

That actually took a while. But I think all this is beside the point, which is: One can surrender when militarily defeated and still go on to rebuild and live in a peaceful, prosperous country.

In the case of Palestine they are actively prevented from doing this though, in contrast to the post WWII period. Where do you suggest they build this country? How do they stop the settlers from taking more and more of their land until they have none left?

If they were murdering innocent civilians, I would certainly be put off. I don't condemn the Palestinians, but I think they have chosen poorly. They have wasted 60 years and counting.

Fucked up choices have been made on both sides. But you seem to have this belief that all the Palestinians need to do is stop fighting and build a state as if there is no obstacle to them doing that - as if there was not always that obstacle for the last 60 years.

Which do you think is more likely to end the current impasse over the blockade?

(a) Israel lifting the restriction on jam and chocolate; or
(b) the release of Gilad Shilat and the immediate cessation of hostilities from Gaza

Neither. I think only international pressure against israel will end the blockade. But that still won't end the fighting. Only a Palestinian state (or fully enfranchised Palestinians within a greater Israeli state) will even come close to ending the fighting.

There is no hope of ending rocket attacks as long as settlers are still persisting in their occupation of another person's land. Neither Hamas, Israel, or the PNA have full control over that situation.

Continuing their armed campaign would be a futile exercise resulting in the loss of human life ... just as it is now.

Although if they did not fight they would no longer even exist. They would have been eliminated decades ago. The fighting does serve to keep the cause alive. Without resistance all of Palestine would be israel now and any of the non-jewish inhabitants would have either been killed, starved, or displaced to other countries.


Andrew

Originally Posted by Andrewl

You said i had no point, in other words you implied that this fact could be brushed aside. Why?

Andrew

uhm, hello; because one has an espoused charter the other doesn't,...one is actually in the position to act, but hasn't, you know the one without that charter?

Originally Posted by Andrewl

In the case of Palestine they are actively prevented from doing this though, in contrast to the post WWII period. Where do you suggest they build this country?

In Palestine. Its borders would have to be resolved by political settlement.

Fucked up choices have been made on both sides. But you seem to have this belief that all the Palestinians need to do is stop fighting and build a state as if there is no obstacle to them doing that - as if there was not always that obstacle for the last 60 years.

Yes, pretty much. There will have to be a political settlement, of course ... just as there always is. Just as with Germany, Poland, Jordan, Egypt, etc.

Neither.

That's not an answer. :/

Although if they did not fight they would no longer even exist. They would have been eliminated decades ago.

I don't believe that for a minute.

The fighting does serve to keep the cause alive.

And a sad testimony that is -- that terrorism actually attracts people to the cause.

Without resistance all of Palestine would be israel now and any of the non-jewish inhabitants would have either been killed, starved, or displaced to other countries.

Yeah, sorry ... don't believe that either.

But I would suggest peaceful resistance if necessary. Blowing up buses and cafes in Israel makes Israelis want to kill Palestinians more rather than less I imagine.

Originally Posted by Imperator

uhm, hello; because one has an espoused charter the other doesn't,...one is actually in the position to act, but hasn't, you know the one without that charter?

Im not denying that Hamas has a nasty charter. But you seem to be denying that powerful elements on the israeli side don't feel the same sentiments towards the palestinians.

Do you not think this is worth considering? If not then why not?

Andrew

Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor

In Palestine. Its borders would have to be resolved by political settlement.

Ultimately, yes. But this requires action by Israel, and giving up the zionist dream of all palestine as the jewish homeland is not something they are yet prepared to do.

Yes, pretty much. There will have to be a political settlement, of course ... just as there always is. Just as with Germany, Poland, Jordan, Egypt, etc.

Really? Not always. Nobody came to a political settlement with the palestinians prior to them being displaced from their homes.

That's not an answer. :/

Yes its is. Your choices were both incorrect.

I don't believe that for a minute.

There are lots of truths that people don't believe. **shrugs**

And a sad testimony that is -- that terrorism actually attracts people to the cause.

Violence is a real and powerful force, sad though it is. Works for everybody's cause.

Yeah, sorry ... don't believe that either.

That's a little bit naive, IMO.

But I would suggest peaceful resistance if necessary. Blowing up buses and cafes in Israel makes Israelis want to kill Palestinians more rather than less I imagine.

How quaint. Perhaps Israel should peacefully resist Hamas. Perhaps the west should peacefully resist AQ....

Not likely.

Andrew

Originally Posted by Andrewl

But this requires action by Israel, and giving up the zionist dream of all palestine as the jewish homeland is not something they are yet prepared to do.

Disagree.

Really? Not always. Nobody came to a political settlement with the palestinians prior to them being displaced from their homes.

Nor the others when they were displaced. It's because war tends to precede peace treaties.

Yes its is. Your choices were both incorrect.

Then you did not understand the question (or you're simply unwilling to answer it honestly). It has more to do with my conversation with pramjockey anyway.

There are lots of truths that people don't believe. **shrugs**

And a lot of falsehoods believed to be truths. :: shrug ::

How quaint. Perhaps Israel should peacefully resist Hamas. Perhaps the west should peacefully resist AQ....

If a country has the military capability to defeat its enemy I see no reason to take that option off the table.