Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 121

Thread: Major Israeli settlement 'unlawful'

  1. #111
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Major Israeli settlement 'unlawful'

    Quote Originally Posted by G-Man View Post
    Perhaps we need a new terminology because their current situation cannot possibly be described as free or liberated.
    Perhaps. However, the problem is Hamas. They are the ones holding power and holding the people hostage there.

    You misunderstood my point. You argue it is perfectly legal for Israel to bomb Gaza yet you think it is illegal for Hamas to lob rockets at Israel. The only real difference between the two seems to be the method of deployment and I cannot seriously regard that as the crux of legality I'm afraid.
    Hamas launched the rockets unprovoked. They are the ones who started this. It is an act of war and by definition illegal. Israel was responding by this act of war. Under article 51 of the UN Charter (which is merely confirmation of what customary international law had held for centuries), Israel has the right to defend itself and to protect its citizens and soveriegnty. Thus, their response is completely legal. THAT is the distinction.

    So as long as you do not start the aggression everything you do in response is 'legal'?
    WIthin the law of war, yes. Nothing Israel has done is against the law of war.

    I doubt you could ever really establish who started the war. The bombing was not my point, the effective laying of thousands of land mines in heavily populated civilian areas is what I would regard as illegal.
    This skirmish was started by Hamas and the Gazans with the weeks of rockets being launched into southern Israel. That is pretty clear.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  2. #112
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    12-30-09 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    567

    Re: Major Israeli settlement 'unlawful'

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Perhaps. However, the problem is Hamas. They are the ones holding power and holding the people hostage there.
    They were elected by the population. It is incorrect to say they are holding the people hostage.

    Israel is the one holding the people of Gaza hostage by blockading them in.

    Hamas launched the rockets unprovoked.
    Lots of people may regard decades of occupation as provocation enough.

    They are the ones who started this.
    Hamas was formed after the troubles began so if you are talking about the wider picture then they did not start this.

    It is an act of war and by definition illegal.
    Resistance to occupation is perfectly legal under international law.

    Israel was responding by this act of war.
    This is the standard response issued from both sides. Everything is always in response to something that the other side has done.

    Under article 51 of the UN Charter (which is merely confirmation of what customary international law had held for centuries), Israel has the right to defend itself and to protect its citizens and soveriegnty. Thus, their response is completely legal. THAT is the distinction.
    Large chunks of Israel does not belong to it under international law. They would have a hard time trying to use UN resolutions to legitimize their actions. This is the very reason they have to take such action on their own as opposed to using the international force option.

    WIthin the law of war, yes. Nothing Israel has done is against the law of war.
    I would argue that the use of cluster bombs in highly populated civilian areas was against the laws of war. But events such as those at Sabra would also question the innocence of the Israelis. To proclaim the innocence of either side against the facts of history is entirely incorrect.

    This skirmish was started by Hamas and the Gazans with the weeks of rockets being launched into southern Israel. That is pretty clear.
    If Israel does not want resistance then it must end its occupation. There has never been a peaceful occupation in history and I do not foresee this one turning into one either.

  3. #113
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Major Israeli settlement 'unlawful'

    Quote Originally Posted by G-Man View Post
    Israel is the one holding the people of Gaza hostage by blockading them in.
    Are you unaware of the Egyptian blockade of Gaza, or are you hoping that everyone else is?

    Lots of people may regard decades of occupation as provocation enough.
    Gaza isnt occupied.

    Hamas was formed after the troubles began so if you are talking about the wider picture then they did not start this.
    There was a 6-month cease fire.
    Immediately after it ended, hamas started hurling rockets.
    How did Hamas snot start this?

    Resistance to occupation is perfectly legal under international law.
    Gaza isnt occupied.

    This is the standard response issued from both sides. Everything is always in response to something that the other side has done.
    Except this.
    There was a 6-month cease fire.
    Immediately after it ended, hamas started hurling rockets.

    Large chunks of Israel does not belong to it under international law.
    What parts, and under what law?

    They would have a hard time trying to use UN resolutions to legitimize their actions
    .
    Silly you, thinking that they need to.

    I would argue that the use of cluster bombs in highly populated civilian areas was against the laws of war.
    Which law?

    If Israel does not want resistance then it must end its occupation.
    Gaza isnt occupied.

    There has never been a peaceful occupation in history and I do not foresee this one turning into one either.
    Mostly bcause the Arabs wont accept a resolution that involves the continued existence of Israel.

  4. #114
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    12-30-09 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    567

    Re: Major Israeli settlement 'unlawful'

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Are you unaware of the Egyptian blockade of Gaza, or are you hoping that everyone else is?
    There is more than one side to borders. Ever tried sailing or flying in to Gazza?

    Gaza isnt occupied.
    It is far from free and liberated. You can suggest a different terminology if you wish.

    There was a 6-month cease fire.
    Immediately after it ended, hamas started hurling rockets.
    How did Hamas snot start this?
    Don't think you read my post properly.

    "Hamas was formed after the troubles began so if you are talking about the wider picture then they did not start this. "

    Gaza isnt occupied.
    See above. It ain't free or liberated either as it has no control over its own borders. You can suggest another description if you wish.

    Except this.
    There was a 6-month cease fire.
    Immediately after it ended, hamas started hurling rockets.
    "Some 50 rockets have been launched from Gaza in recent days, after the killing of three Hamas members by Israel."

    BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Israel warns Hamas over rockets

    So Israel kills some Hamas members and rockets are fired back. Like I said, you will do well to find the start point as both sides normally claim their actions are in retaliation.

    What parts, and under what law?
    Anything and everything which was not given to it under the partition or agreed to by neighboring states.

    Silly you, thinking that they need to.
    Ha, well it has ignored every resolution passed against it so it would be quite incredible if it then sought to use UN resolutions to justify any of its actions.

    Which law?
    Probably something like the below but not restricted to it only.

    Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Collective punishments

    Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
    Pillage is prohibited.
    Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

    Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice."

    Additional Protocol II of 1977 explicitly forbids collective punishment. But as fewer states have ratified this protocol than GCIV, GCIV Article 33. is the one more commonly quoted.

    Gaza isnt occupied.
    "If Israel does not want resistance then it must end its occupation. "

    I wasn't just referring to Gaza. No matter what happens there it is not the be all and end all of the problems.

    Mostly bcause the Arabs wont accept a resolution that involves the continued existence of Israel.
    You have asked them all?

  5. #115
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Major Israeli settlement 'unlawful'

    Quote Originally Posted by G-Man View Post
    There is more than one side to borders. Ever tried sailing or flying in to Gazza?
    I'm no sure how this addresses the question regarding the Egypotian role in the blockade of Gaza.

    It is far from free and liberated. You can suggest a different terminology if you wish.
    You used the term "occupied". Now you;re moving the goalpost.

    Don't think you read my post properly.
    "Hamas was formed after the troubles began so if you are talking about the wider picture then they did not start this. "
    Aha. So, what 'started this'?

    See above. It ain't free or liberated either as it has no control over its own borders. You can suggest another description if you wish.
    See above.
    You used the term "occupied". Now you're moving the goalpost.
    As for control over its borders -- Gaza can fully decide for itself who it allows to pass theu its borders. It has full control.

    Anything and everything which was not given to it under the partition or agreed to by neighboring states.
    You DO know that a nation's borders arent solely defined by what was 'given to it', right? That borders change for numerous reasons, not the least of which is the taking of land during wartime -- right?
    So, I ask again:
    Under which law do large chunks of Israel does not belong to it?
    Which parts?


    Ha, well it has ignored every resolution passed against it so it would be quite incredible if it then sought to use UN resolutions to justify any of its actions.
    Again:
    Silly you, thinking it needs to.

    Probably something like the below but not restricted to it only.
    This doesnt address the use of cluster bombs in any way shape or form.
    Thus, I ask again:
    Under which law is the use of cluster bombs in highly populated civilian areas prohibited?

    You have asked them all?
    Have you asked any of them?
    The people they 'elected' seem to be very clear on the point.

  6. #116
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    12-30-09 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    567

    Re: Major Israeli settlement 'unlawful'

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I'm no sure how this addresses the question regarding the Egypotian role in the blockade of Gaza.
    If you are suggesting Egypt will suffer no consequence from Israel if it allows an open border with Gazza then you are mistaken. The Egyptian blockade is something that is almost forced upon Egypt and you're attempt to make out as though they have a choice in this matter is slightly dishonest.

    You used the term "occupied". Now you;re moving the goalpost.
    No, I am happy using the term occupied.

    "subjugated, under the control of a foreign military presence"

    occupied - Wiktionary

    I merely suggested you could use another if you are unhappy using it.
    Liberated does not seem entirely appropriate.

    Aha. So, what 'started this'?
    A desire from the Jewish people to carve up an area of land for their own exclusive use.

    See above.
    You used the term "occupied". Now you're moving the goalpost.
    As for control over its borders -- Gaza can fully decide for itself who it allows to pass theu its borders. It has full control.
    See above. I am happy using the term 'occupied' as I feel it is a correct definition of the situation. I have asked if you wish to use another phrase but you refuse to suggest anything else.

    If I want to enter Gaza by sea or air right now I would be best to speak to the Israelis unless I want to be blown up. This does not suggest to me that Hamas are in control of anything in the area.

    You DO know that a nation's borders arent solely defined by what was 'given to it', right? That borders change for numerous reasons, not the least of which is the taking of land during wartime -- right?
    So, I ask again:
    Under which law do large chunks of Israel does not belong to it?
    Which parts?
    I do not know Israeli law but the Israeli supreme court does not regard the settlements which form part of Israel as Israeli sovereign territory. Maybe Tasha could answer this question better. Under international law no other nations recognize the borders which Israel currently resides within, including the US.

    Maybe the rest of the world is just wrong and legally it does belong to Israel?

    Again:
    Silly you, thinking it needs to.
    Correct. Rogue states generally do as they wish.


    This doesnt address the use of cluster bombs in any way shape or form.
    Thus, I ask again:
    Under which law is the use of cluster bombs in highly populated civilian areas prohibited?
    It was stated, you maybe missed.

    "Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited".

    Have you asked any of them?
    The people they 'elected' seem to be very clear on the point.
    No, but I never tried to generalize an entire people.

    Hamas seeks the end of Israel. Many people agree with them but mostly this is with regard to the issue of borders and sovereignty. It is not genocide that is sought. It is the ownership of the land which is the burning question.

  7. #117
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Major Israeli settlement 'unlawful'

    Quote Originally Posted by G-Man View Post
    If you are suggesting Egypt will suffer no consequence from Israel if it allows an open border with Gazza then you are mistaken. The Egyptian blockade is something that is almost forced upon Egypt and you're attempt to make out as though they have a choice in this matter is slightly dishonest.
    Wow... I didn't know that Israel had the capacity to force Egypt to do anything.
    Tell me: What will Israel do to Egypt, should Egypt refuse to blockade Gaza, and how do you know?

    No, I am happy using the term occupied.
    "subjugated, under the control of a foreign military presence"
    Then you are wrong. Israel doesnt occupy Gaza.

    A desire from the Jewish people to carve up an area of land for their own exclusive use
    .
    I see. So, the mere existence of Israel, brought Hamas, et al, into being.
    I guess that's why Hamas, et al, want nothing other than the destruction of Israel.

    See above. I am happy using the term 'occupied' as I feel it is a correct definition of the situation
    Then you are wrong. Israel doesnt occypy Gaza.

    If I want to enter Gaza by sea or air right now I would be best to speak to the Israelis unless I want to be blown up.
    Israel has the right to control its own border, including who crosses it when leaving Israel. That Israel will not allow someone to pass from its border doesnt in any way change the fact that Gaza, right now, has the absolute ability to allow anyone it chooses to enter. Thus, Gaza has complete control of its border.

    This does not suggest to me that Hamas are in control of anything in the area
    .
    Only because you do not understand what it means to be in control of one's border.

    I do not know Israeli law but the Israeli supreme court does not regard the settlements which form part of Israel as Israeli sovereign territory. Maybe Tasha could answer this question better. Under international law no other nations recognize the borders which Israel currently resides within, including the US.

    Maybe the rest of the world is just wrong and legally it does belong to Israel?
    Just to be clear:
    You have not cited which large chunks of Israel do not belong to it, and you have not cited the law that makes this so.
    If you cannot do these things, your position is untenable.

    Correct. Rogue states generally do as they wish.
    I see -- any state that does not hold itself to your unspportable idea of how states should do things is a 'rogue state'.


    News flash: the UN is not the sole originator of International Law.
    That being the case, not every international issue need be addressed by the UN for the resoluton of same to be entirely legitimate. The idea that NOT going the thru the UN confers some sort of 'rogue state' status is laughable.

    It was stated, you maybe missed.
    "Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited".
    This has absolutely nothing to do with using cluster bombs in built-up areas.

    At this point, you have failed to specify which law prohibits the use of cluster bombs in highly populated civilian areas, and as such your claim to that effect remains unsupported and untenable.

    No, but I never tried to generalize an entire people
    .
    So, you -dont- know that the people of Palestine do NOT support the destruction of Israel, and see that as the only acceptable resolution of the issue.

    Hamas seeks the end of Israel.
    And the Palestinian people elected Hamas as their government.
    Seems that this supports my position and speaks stronly against its opposite.

  8. #118
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    12-30-09 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    567

    Re: Major Israeli settlement 'unlawful'

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Wow... I didn't know that Israel had the capacity to force Egypt to do anything.
    I'm sure you do and are just being dishonest but:

    Rafah Border Crossing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "The Rafah crossing was opened on 25 November 2005 and operated nearly daily until 25 June 2006.[1] Since that time it has been closed by Israel on 86% of days due to security reasons"

    Tell me: What will Israel do to Egypt, should Egypt refuse to blockade Gaza, and how do you know?
    Clearly they will close all the crossings , as they have done so already on numerous times, label Egypt as 'terrorist sponsors' and have the US remove all of Egypts international privileges. And worse I suspect.

    The fact that the Egypt/Gazza crossing agreement is signed to by ISRAEL should give an indication on the type of freehand that Egypt has when discussing its borders.

    Then you are wrong. Israel doesnt occupy Gaza.
    Because you say so or are you going to support your position?

    'Occupy' is not solely limited to physical presence - wikidictionary supports my position that those under the control of a foreign military power are occupied.

    I see. So, the mere existence of Israel, brought Hamas, et al, into being.
    I guess that's why Hamas, et al, want nothing other than the destruction of Israel.
    Obviously. Without an Israel in the ME there would be no Hamas in Palestine.

    Then you are wrong. Israel doesnt occypy Gaza.
    You saying I'm wrong doesn't actually make it so....just to let you know.

    Israel has the right to control its own border, including who crosses it when leaving Israel. That Israel will not allow someone to pass from its border doesnt in any way change the fact that Gaza, right now, has the absolute ability to allow anyone it chooses to enter.
    It can allow anyone it wants to enter but whether they get there alive or not depends on Israel.

    Thus, Gaza has complete control of its border.
    It has an ability to say 'yes'. It has no ability whatsoever to make sure that who it wants to come in gets in and who wants out gets out. Thus Gaza has no control of its borders.

    The fact that it can say 'yes' to whoever it pleases is completely irrelevant if it cannot facilitate any movements without Israeli approval.

    Only because you do not understand what it means to be in control of one's border.
    I would have thought the ability to ensure the passage of persons from one side to the other would be the paramount factor. Israel exercises this ability and not the Palestinians so how can you say they are in control?

    You have not cited which large chunks of Israel do not belong to it
    See earlier. "Anything and everything which was not given to it under the partition or agreed to by neighboring states."

    and you have not cited the law that makes this so.
    That is because there is no law which makes this land legally part of Israel.
    International law dictates that the land does not belong to Israel.

    If you cannot do these things, your position is untenable.
    My position is the same as the Israeli Supreme Court, The US, the UN and everyone else who has any understanding of the subject. I am happy that my position is correct. You saying it is not does not convince me otherwise.

    I see -- any state that does not hold itself to your unspportable idea of how states should do things is a 'rogue state'.
    "Rogue state is a term applied by some international theorists to states considered threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction." - Rogue state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Its not MY idea of how states should do things.

    I would regard Empire building, occupation and proliferation of WMD as being possible traits of rogue states so Israel would fit the above. Course it is not the only one in the world and the same could be applied to Palestine (if we regarded it as being a nation) quite easily.

    News flash: the UN is not the sole originator of International Law.
    Interesting. Who else creates international law in your opinion?

    That being the case, not every international issue need be addressed by the UN for the resoluton of same to be entirely legitimate.
    States cannot pass on international legitimacy for their own actions. What Hitler did was legal in Germany, the rest of the world didn't quite see it that way.

    The idea that NOT going the thru the UN confers some sort of 'rogue state' status is laughable.
    Israel CANNOT go via the UN and ask it to protect Israel's illegal borders, that would be absurd.

    I never called it a rogue state because it did not go via the UN, I'm not sure where you get that from. Its a rogue state as per the above.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with using cluster bombs in built-up areas.
    ? "The general rules of international humanitarian law aimed at protecting civilians also apply to cluster bombs as they do to all weapons."

    Cluster bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    At this point, you have failed to specify which law prohibits the use of cluster bombs in highly populated civilian areas, and as such your claim to that effect remains unsupported and untenable.
    The one I stated earlier. The general rules of international humanitarian law.

    So, you -dont- know that the people of Palestine do NOT support the destruction of Israel, and see that as the only acceptable resolution of the issue.
    No, and I didn't proclaim to know either. Thats the difference.

    And the Palestinian people elected Hamas as their government.
    Seems that this supports my position and speaks stronly against its opposite.
    Only because you either do not know the difference between eliminating Israel and eliminating all the Jews or purposely pretend otherwise.

  9. #119
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Major Israeli settlement 'unlawful'

    Quote Originally Posted by G-Man View Post
    I'm sure you do and are just being dishonest but:
    "The Rafah crossing was opened on 25 November 2005 and operated nearly daily until 25 June 2006.[1] Since that time it has been closed by Israel on 86% of days due to security reasons"

    Clearly they will close all the crossings , as they have done so already on numerous times, label Egypt as 'terrorist sponsors' and have the US remove all of Egypts international privileges. And worse I suspect.
    Israel closed the corssing when it had a presence in Gaza.
    Presently it does not, and therefore cannot close the crossing, nor force Egypt to do so.
    And so, how does Israel foce Egypt to do anything here?

    Because you say so or are you going to support your position?
    Israel has no presence in Gaza. You cannot occypuy a country without a prisicak presence. You can do a LOT of other things w/o a physical presence, but you cannot, by the very nature of the term, occupy.

    Obviously. Without an Israel in the ME there would be no Hamas in Palestine.
    If that's the case then, and that Hamas, etc, were formed specifically to combat the existence of Israel, what do you suggest Israel do?

    You saying I'm wrong doesn't actually make it so....just to let you know
    .
    See above.
    Israel has no presence in Gaza. You cannot occpuy a country without a prisicak presence. You can do a LOT of other things w/o a physical presence, but you cannot, by the very nature of the term, occupy.

    It can allow anyone it wants to enter but whether they get there alive or not depends on Israel.

    It has an ability to say 'yes'. It has no ability whatsoever to make sure that who it wants to come in gets in and who wants out gets out. Thus Gaza has no control of its borders.
    You are then arguing two seperate issues, neither of which supports the idea that Gaza does not control its own borders. Israel denying permission to cross the Israeli frontier into Gaza does nothing to diminish this.

    By your argument, for Gaza to 'control'; its borders, Israel would be forced to relinqish contril of Israeli borders. Absurd on its face.

    See earlier. "Anything and everything which was not given to it under the partition or agreed to by neighboring states."
    This is not a citation of territory or of law.
    if you cannot be more specific, your position is untenable.

    That is because there is no law which makes this land legally part of Israel.
    International law dictates that the land does not belong to Israel.
    Please cite the specific law to that effect.

    "Rogue state is a term applied by some international theorists to states considered threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction."
    This is hardly a convincing argument as toi how the term 'rogue state' applkies to Israel, especilly given the context in which you applied it and the source of the definition.

    Interesting. Who else creates international law in your opinion?
    You DO know that Internationl law existed for 5000+ years before the UN was formed, yes?
    International law is a product of custom and treaty.
    Neither of these things require involvement with the UN.

    States cannot pass on international legitimacy for their own actions. What Hitler did was legal in Germany, the rest of the world didn't quite see it that way.
    If by "international legitimacy" you mean necessary involvement of the UN...
    Absolutely they can, and they do it all the time.

    Israel CANNOT go via the UN and ask it to protect Israel's illegal borders, that would be absurd.
    The absurd notion here is that Israel has illegal borders given that you have yet to specify what parts of Israel are "illegal" and what law makes them so.

    "The general rules of international humanitarian law aimed at protecting civilians also apply to cluster bombs as they do to all weapons."
    Cluster bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Ah yes -- the Convention on Cluster Munitions
    Did you bother to look to see who is not a signatory?
    Use by non-signatories is not illegal.

    The one I stated earlier. The general rules of international humanitarian law.
    So, you cannot cite a specific law that prohibits their use. Thanks.

    Only because you either do not know the difference between eliminating Israel and eliminating all the Jews or purposely pretend otherwise.
    Really.
    How does the stated objective of Hamas, etc, to destroy Israel, not support the idea that the people that elected those organizations as their government support that objective?

  10. #120
    Sage
    First Thought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas
    Last Seen
    12-01-10 @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,218

    Re: Major Israeli settlement 'unlawful'

    "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •