UN finds Israeli raid on Flotilla unlawful

amacachi

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Is there any corner of the globe that British imperialism has not managed to fcuk up in some way?

The Belgians, French, Spanish and Portuguese got into a few places first, but it's easier to just look at the ones the Brits were involved in.

Viper_JB

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

The flotilla was heading towards Gaza, whether or not it was in international waters or not. They were well aware that they would be boarded too.

The whole international waters issue here is not to be easily dismissed it's effectively a country engaged in an act of piracy leading to the pointless deaths of nine people in international waters. It's pretty mad when you think about it. Just because you inform someone that you're about to do something illegal it does not make you innocent of the crime. If 9 Israelis were killed on the way to Turkey under similiar circumstances in international waters do you really think Israel would sit back and do nothing about it?

--Kaiser--

wes wrote: »

Yes, and they were attacked in International waters in the dead of night. Also, there is the UN report which found the whole thing unlawful.

Which doesn't make the IDF attack right......

Well if they attacking in the dead of night, some people will protect themselves from a pack of well known murderer's. If they were really looking for a fight surely they would have done a lot better than using stuff that is commonly found on a ship.

Also, I would like to point out the only people who murdered anyone was the IDF. Also, why were some of the dead shot at point blank range or in the back?

What danger is Pasta exactly? I was using it as an example to show how petty and pointless some of the stuff they banned was. What possible reason could anyone have to ban pasta. Its truly pointless.

First of all f**k the UN. They've literally stood by and watched thousands of people being massacred and done nothing, I don't give two S**ts what their report says.

The blockade is 'illegal' (which is a ridiculous statement when you talk of international conflict), so what, Israel had a blockade and they were going to enforce it. It wasn't a shock for anyone that a ship was boarded. They boarded one at a time (with about a minute between landings) armed with paintball guns. Doesn't sound very aggressive to me. Beating someone unconscious and kidnapping them, however, does. The head honchos ordered a retaliation as a snap decision to defend their troops. Too hard, yes, but the blockade runners were the instigators.

Manic Moran

[Edit: Disregard, found a link. Reading the report now]

NTM

wes

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

First of all f**k the UN. They've literally stood by and watched thousands of people being massacred and done nothing, I don't give two S**ts what their report says.

So you take issue with the UN, but happy to make excuses of the IDF killing a bunch of people.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

The blockade is 'illegal' (which is a ridiculous statement when you talk of international conflict),

Stating a inconvient fact is hardly ridiculous in the context of what we are discussing.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

so what, Israel had a blockade and they were going to enforce it.

Yes, and blockade is illegal whether you like it or not, and the collective punishment of 1.5 million people is just state terrorism. Of course, Israel state terrorism is apparently alright.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

It wasn't a shock for anyone that a ship was boarded.

I think the people who were shot in the backs it might have been....

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

They boarded one at a time (with about a minute between landings) armed with paintball guns. Doesn't sound very aggressive to me.

The boarding in International waters in the dead of night, and they fired even before they boards according to the people on the boat.

I think all the dead speaks to the aggression btw.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Being beaten unconscious and kidnapped, however does.

They had no business on the boat in the first place, as you know they were attacking.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

The head honchos ordered a retaliation as a snap decision to defend their troops. Too hard, yes, but the blockade runners were the instigators.

No, they weren't the IDF were the attackers, the people on the boat defended themselves. Again, we see the same old excuses from supporters of Israel and rarely do we see condemnation. Its pretty appaling all the excuses for Israel murderous violence.

brianthebard

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

First of all f**k the UN. They've literally stood by and watched thousands of people being massacred and done nothing, I don't give two S**ts what their report says.

The blockade is 'illegal' (which is a ridiculous statement when you talk of international conflict)

The blockade isn't an international conflict, its a means for Israel to starve its own citizens to death, or have them die of disease. It is so bizarre and unsettling to see people justify Israel's actions in this way. Its one thing to complain about Hamas or whatever but its another to claim the blockade is admissible or the ship boarding and murdering of international citizens is what you get if you piss off Israel, 'cause its Israel yo, and we're a bunch of dicks.'

General Zod

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

First of all f**k the UN. They've literally stood by and watched thousands of people being massacred and done nothing, I don't give two S**ts what their report says.

The blockade is 'illegal' (which is a ridiculous statement when you talk of international conflict), so what, Israel had a blockade and they were going to enforce it. It wasn't a shock for anyone that a ship was boarded. They boarded one at a time (with about a minute between landings) armed with paintball guns. Doesn't sound very aggressive to me. Beating someone unconscious and kidnapping them, however, does. The head honchos ordered a retaliation as a snap decision to defend their troops. Too hard, yes, but the blockade runners were the instigators.

and they were to know they were paintball guns how?

TBh i can comepltely understand the reaction of picking up a bar and going for the troops when teh troops are abseiling onto your ship with guns. the IDF are known for acting first and ignoring questions later, so people could very reasonably be in fear for their lives.

squod

No new registrations yet? And this thread's been going on for four pages. What are they, on a break?

Nodin

dr.bollocko wrote: »

...
The carb content's a bit high...

...and apparently if you leave it, its a bastard to get off the dishes.

BlaasForRafa

brianthebard wrote: »

The blockade isn't an international conflict, its a means for Israel to starve its own citizens to death, or have them die of disease. It is so bizarre and unsettling to see people justify Israel's actions in this way. Its one thing to complain about Hamas or whatever but its another to claim the blockade is admissible or the ship boarding and murdering of international citizens is what you get if you piss off Israel, 'cause its Israel yo, and we're a bunch of dicks.'

The people of Gaza are not Israeli citizens so theres no way it could be "starve its own citizens to death". Also Gaza may not be happyhappyfunland but the people are not starving. If you want to keep making that claim produce evidence of death by malnutrition due to the blockade.

It should also be noted that the people of Gaza were not made Egyptian citizens during its occupation by Egypt from 1948-1967

brianthebard

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The people of Gaza are not Israeli citizens so theres no way it could be "starve its own citizens to death". Also Gaza may not be happyhappyfunland but the people are not starving. If you want to keep making that claim produce evidence of death by malnutrition due to the blockade.

It should also be noted that the people of Gaza were not made Egyptian citizens during its occupation by Egypt from 1948-1967

Israel does not recognise the Palestinian state, who do they belong to legally if they are not Israeli citizens? Part of being a state is having a duty to all the people who live within your borders, which Israel clearly wants to deny. And if you think having a million and a half people in an area the size of Gaza with hyper restricted imports isn't causing people to die you're mad. But that wouldn't be uncommon with the apologists in this thread.

BlaasForRafa

brianthebard wrote: »

Israel does not recognise the Palestinian state, who do they belong to legally if they are not Israeli citizens? Part of being a state is having a duty to all the people who live within your borders, which Israel clearly wants to deny. And if you think having a million and a half people in an area the size of Gaza with hyper restricted imports isn't causing people to die you're mad. But that wouldn't be uncommon with the apologists in this thread.

So you have no evidence I take it.

brianthebard

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

So you have no evidence I take it.

Your right how silly of me, Israel love to release official figures about Gaza don't they, its just wrong of me not to provide figures.

FlutterinBantam

Settled then, no evidence.

Fratton Fred

Terry wrote: »

Indeed.
There's a castle named after my Family in Sligo. Actually there are 6 around there and Mayo. I don't think I'd stand a chance of claiming land once owned by my ancestors.

So you propose the Israelis should clear off then and have no right to their own homeland?

You are obviously an expert, what is the answer?

ejmaztec

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So you propose the Israelis should clear off then and have no right to their own homeland?

You are obviously an expert, what is the answer?

They should all come here, we'll be quids in after they've paid the entrance fee.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So you propose the Israelis should clear off then and have no right to their own homeland?

If you truly believe that they have that right, why aren't you out trying to get back you piece of angle and/or saxon homeland?

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

If you truly believe that they have that right, why aren't you out trying to get back you piece of angle and/or saxon homeland?

because the Angles have a homeland, its called England.

A bit like the Scots have Scotland and the Ires have Ireland:D

Manic Moran

Interesting report, so far the best factual timeline I've seen in the public domain thus far. Devote at least half an hour to reading it, it's not particularly short.

The people arguing away on here would probably do well to read it, on both sides, as there are some interesting conclusions.

Interestingly, the first group the Mission slaps down is the Security Council, for having come to a conclusion before bothering to review the evidence, and in doing so confirms Israel's claims of bias at the UN.

Primarily, it concludes that the primary grounds for declaring many of the Israeli actions unlawful was not so much the method, as the fact that it believed the blockade to be unlawful to begin with on the grounds that in its opinion, it was causing disproportionate suffering to the people of Gaza. It remains silent on its opinion on the blockade now that the Israelis have relaxed the prohibition list and proportions have changed and if such a boarding could be carried out again, though it does note that the easing has taken place. It is also to be noted that the Mission gives the flotilla a bit of a slap by concluding that it was not their primary objective to land the aid but instead to make a political scene. Doesn't affect the legality of the blockade per se, but does muddy the waters a little bit when it comes to the purpose of the blockade.

With regards to the International Waters bit, the report points out that the location affords no protection. It was purely a matter of 'was the blockade legitimate', not 'where was the ship'.

Initial attempts to board Mavi were made using solely less-lethal means, that attempt was repelled. Only then did the helicopter assault take place. It is to be noted that the report concludes that in the circumstances surrounding the fighting, the use of lethal force in the initial stages may have been justified. Only during the subsequent securing of the ship does the report state concerns over the levels of force used. Of note, the Report concludes that the correct course of action after the initial repelling for the Israelis to have taken would have been, in effect, to give up. This seems an unreasonable conclusion given the belief the Israelis would have had that they had a legitimate grounds for going on board.

The wide disparity of actions on the different ships is mentioned but unaddressed. On some, the Israelis came aboard firing less-lethal weapons from the get-go, and were generally unpleasant. On others, the Israelis quietly boarded, left the passengers un-handcuffed, and brought them food from the galley. There are several possible explanations for this, generally related to the mindset of both individual groups upon meeting, the report makes no attempt to analyse them. It would have been interesting for them to have done so.

The item of most concern to me isn't the boarding itself, it's the treatment of passengers after the ships had been secured, and particularly within Israel itself. Arguments over 'Was the boarding legal' are beyond the immediate concerns of the troops and passengers. Once the detention has been made, there are few legitimate excuses for the treatment apparently carried out. I would be most interested to see the results of the Turkel report to see what recommendations are made by the Israelis on such a thing.

NTM

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

because the Angles have a homeland, its called England.

A bit like the Scots have Scotland and the Ires have Ireland:D

Scots came from Ireland, are they entitled to take back the north?

galwayrush

Can the Viking desendents take back Ireland? The Scandavanians seem to do a better job running their countries compared to our lot.:D

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

Scots came from Ireland, are they entitled to take back the north?

I thought they already had it, at least it looked like it last time I was there.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I thought they already had it, at least it looked like it last time I was there.

You're very flippant once your seemingly outraged pro-Israeli stance is challenged in any way aren't you?

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

You're very flippant once your seemingly outraged pro-Israeli stance is challenged in any way aren't you?

woah, hang on there a second.

Pro Israeli because I believe they have a right to a homeland yes, but in no way pro how they are treating the people of Gaza. I'm pro Israel in that i believe they have a right to defend themselves, but very much anti the way they go about it in many cases.

I personally think they have a right to board these ships, but they should do it in proportion and from Manic's summary above it seems that in some cases this is the way it went.

It is a very very complex situation and quite often on these boards it is seen as simply Israel wrong, Hamas right.

Zebra3

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

So you have no evidence I take it.

There have been a number of reports by the UN clearly stating that those living (if that's the right word) in Gaza struggle in worse poverty than those in sub-Saharan Africa.

Enough said. :mad:

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

woah, hang on there a second.

Pro Israeli because I believe they have a right to a homeland yes

But when I put your homeland principle to the tiniest bit of scrutiny you fold, because you realise that of course Scots would have no right to take over Ireland simply because an old book said they were from Ireland. So in turn you realise just how poor an argument it is, and resort to being flippant.

Some questions;

Why do they have a right to a 'homeland', as opposed to the homes they had prior to 1917? Try not to godwin yourself here.

Why do they have a right to a country which did not exist 3000 years ago?

Why does that right come at a cost to the people who originally lived in that 'homeland' when the zionists arrived there?

Wolfe Tone

I am astounded at the hypocrisy from some posters here when I compare their posts here to those they make in threads about our own country and ulster in particular.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

But when I put your homeland principle to the tiniest bit of scrutiny you fold, because you realise that of course Scots would have no right to take over Ireland simply because an old book said they were from Ireland. So in turn you realise just how poor an argument it is, and resort to being flippant.

Some questions;

Why do they have a right to a 'homeland', as opposed to the homes they had prior to 1917? Try not to godwin yourself here.

Why do they have a right to a country which did not exist 3000 years ago?

Why does that right come at a cost to the people who originally lived in that 'homeland' when the zionists arrived there?

No, I was being flippant before that actually.

Are you suggesting that all the Israelis bugger off then? or just hand control of the country over to Hamas? are you saying that Zionism is wrong?

Why does it come at the expense of the locals who were already there? it shouldn't, the two should co-exist and when I went there before the second intifada it looked to me as though they were.

squod

brianthebard wrote: »

Why do they have a right to a 'homeland', as opposed to the homes they had prior to 1917? Try not to godwin yourself here.

Why do they have a right to a country which did not exist 3000 years ago?

Why does that right come at a cost to the people who originally lived in that 'homeland' when the zionists arrived there?

I lol at this stuff. How many white jewish europeans were there in the region 3,000 years ago?

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

.............. or just hand control of the country over to Hamas? ...........

It is a very very complex situation and quite often on these boards it is seen as simply Israel wrong, Hamas right.

I was unaware that (a) opposition to Israels policies equated to support of Hamas and (b) that Hamas was the sole, only and all-encompassing entity that represented the Palestinian people.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

because the Angles have a homeland, its called England.

No, the Angles made a home in England. Their place of origin was in Angeln, Germany, after which they were named.

ascanbe

Manic Moran wrote: »

Interesting report, so far the best factual timeline I've seen in the public domain thus far. Devote at least half an hour to reading it, it's not particularly short.

The people arguing away on here would probably do well to read it, on both sides, as there are some interesting conclusions.

Interestingly, the first group the Mission slaps down is the Security Council, for having come to a conclusion before bothering to review the evidence, and in doing so confirms Israel's claims of bias at the UN.

Primarily, it concludes that the primary grounds for declaring many of the Israeli actions unlawful was not so much the method, as the fact that it believed the blockade to be unlawful to begin with on the grounds that in its opinion, it was causing disproportionate suffering to the people of Gaza. It remains silent on its opinion on the blockade now that the Israelis have relaxed the prohibition list and proportions have changed and if such a boarding could be carried out again, though it does note that the easing has taken place. It is also to be noted that the Mission gives the flotilla a bit of a slap by concluding that it was not their primary objective to land the aid but instead to make a political scene. Doesn't affect the legality of the blockade per se, but does muddy the waters a little bit when it comes to the purpose of the blockade.

With regards to the International Waters bit, the report points out that the location affords no protection. It was purely a matter of 'was the blockade legitimate', not 'where was the ship'.

Initial attempts to board Mavi were made using solely less-lethal means, that attempt was repelled. Only then did the helicopter assault take place. It is to be noted that the report concludes that in the circumstances surrounding the fighting, the use of lethal force in the initial stages may have been justified. Only during the subsequent securing of the ship does the report state concerns over the levels of force used. Of note, the Report concludes that the correct course of action after the initial repelling for the Israelis to have taken would have been, in effect, to give up. This seems an unreasonable conclusion given the belief the Israelis would have had that they had a legitimate grounds for going on board.

The wide disparity of actions on the different ships is mentioned but unaddressed. On some, the Israelis came aboard firing less-lethal weapons from the get-go, and were generally unpleasant. On others, the Israelis quietly boarded, left the passengers un-handcuffed, and brought them food from the galley. There are several possible explanations for this, generally related to the mindset of both individual groups upon meeting, the report makes no attempt to analyse them. It would have been interesting for them to have done so.

The item of most concern to me isn't the boarding itself, it's the treatment of passengers after the ships had been secured, and particularly within Israel itself. Arguments over 'Was the boarding legal' are beyond the immediate concerns of the troops and passengers. Once the detention has been made, there are few legitimate excuses for the treatment apparently carried out. I would be most interested to see the results of the Turkel report to see what recommendations are made by the Israelis on such a thing.

NTM

Really? What i've highlighted is of the 'most concern' to you?
That's awfully thoughtful of you and would almost make one believe you weren't completely biased about the whole thing; that's if one hadn't read the one-eyed nonsense in the previous paragraphs, regarding the reasons for the attack on the ship and the passengers detention.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

I was unaware that (a) opposition to Israels policies equated to support of Hamas and (b) that Hamas was the sole, only and all-encompassing entity that represented the Palestinian people.

Me being flippant again I'm afraid.

Nodin wrote: »

No, the Angles made a home in England. Their place of origin was in Angeln, Germany, after which they were named.

Dear god, you'll be telling me Saxons came from Saxony next.;)

Terry

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So you propose the Israelis should clear off then and have no right to their own homeland?

You are obviously an expert, what is the answer?

Ahh, Fred. I'm sorry for pointing out the obvious. I know how much you dislike it when the actions of your beloved homeland are shown as the atrocities that they are. I'd pat you on the head, but I can't reach you from here.

Despite your condescending question, I will offer up a solution. It's not perfect, but I'm not really an expert. I tend to see things as they are, and work from that perspective.

We can criticise Israel and Palestine untl we are blue in the face, but nothing will change.
What needs to be done is for Israel to stop encroaching on Palestinian land, for Israel to stop prosecuting Palestinians for realy ridiculous things (remember the Palestinian imprisoned for rape because he pretended to be a Jew in order to score?), for Israel to stop saying that the land is their own because of the writings of a 5,000 year old book, for Israeli employers to stop discriminating against Palestinians just because of their religion.

Then you have the Palestinian hard-liners. They need to realise that the state of Israel is not going anywhere. They need to accept it because things are not going to change. They also need to stop discriminating on the basis of religion.

Basically both sides need a good kick in the bollix. Maybe two. Apparently it's less sensitive when you are circumcised.

Finally, British people need to understand that their predecessors are responsible for the situation here, and that they can't blame nazi Germany on everything. They need to see that the massive propaganda against nazi Germany only came about in the late 1930's, and that before that happened the French were their enemy and Germany was their ally (what with Betty II being of German descent and all).

You see, Fred, in spite of what you may have been indoctrinated to believe, your ancestors are responsible for most of the strife in Africa, Asia and the middle East.
The sun has set on the British empire and the chickens are coming home to roost.
You reap what you sow.
My English lodger can see this. Unfortunately most other British people can not.

You can try to excuse Israeli actions all you want, but all you are doing is excusing past British atrocities against innocent people. The IDF may be complete ****, but they were backed by past British governments in order to usurp land that is not their own.

I'm off now to reclaim O'Dowd castles in the North West. Wish me luck.
While the Irish government may be comepletely incompetent at times, at least they know that fables do not entitle someone to another person's land.

Balls. A leprechaun just bit me in the ankle. I'll have to wait until this heals before I go and claim the lands of my ancestors.

BlaasForRafa

Zebra3 wrote: »

There have been a number of reports by the UN clearly stating that those living (if that's the right word) in Gaza struggle in worse poverty than those in sub-Saharan Africa.

Enough said. :mad:

so STILL no evidence of deaths in Gaza from malnutrition due to the blockade.

Enough said indeed.

Fratton Fred

Terry wrote: »

Ahh, Fred. I'm sorry for pointing out the obvious. I know how much you dislike it when the actions of your beloved homeland are shown as the atrocities that they are. I'd pat you on the head, but I can't reach you from here.

Despite your condescending question, I will offer up a solution. It's not perfect, but I'm not really an expert. I tend to see things as they are, and work from that perspective.

We can criticise Israel and Palestine untl we are blue in the face, but nothing will change.
What needs to be done is for Israel to stop encroaching on Palestinian land, for Israel to stop prosecuting Palestinians for realy ridiculous things (remember the Palestinian imprisoned for rape because he pretended to be a Jew in order to score?), for Israel to stop saying that the land is their own because of the writings of a 5,000 year old book, for Israeli employers to stop discriminating against Palestinians just because of their religion.

Then you have the Palestinian hard-liners. They need to realise that the state of Israel is not going anywhere. They need to accept it because things are not going to change. They also need to stop discriminating on the basis of religion.

Basically both sides need a good kick in the bollix. Maybe two. Apparently it's less sensitive when you are circumcised.

when you write stuff like this, you make sense.

Terry wrote: »

Finally, British people need to understand that their predecessors are responsible for the situation here, and that they can't blame nazi Germany on everything. They need to see that the massive propaganda against nazi Germany only came about in the late 1930's, and that before that happened the French were their enemy and Germany was their ally (what with Betty II being of German descent and all).

You see, Fred, in spite of what you may have been indoctrinated to believe, your ancestors are responsible for most of the strife in Africa, Asia and the middle East.
The sun has set on the British empire and the chickens are coming home to roost.
You reap what you sow.
My English lodger can see this. Unfortunately most other British people can not.

You can try to excuse Israeli actions all you want, but all you are doing is excusing past British atrocities against innocent people. The IDF may be complete ****, but they were backed by past British governments in order to usurp land that is not their own.

I'm off now to reclaim O'Dowd castles in the North West. Wish me luck.
While the Irish government may be comepletely incompetent at times, at least they know that fables do not entitle someone to another person's land.

Balls. A leprechaun just bit me in the ankle. I'll have to wait until this heals before I go and claim the lands of my ancestors.

When you write stuff like this, you just come across as having a massive anti British chip on your shoulder.

Out of curiosity, why do you insist on bringing my nationality into pretty much every response you make to me, or is it that when you go off on one of your rants you start showing your true colours?

and wtf are you on about Germany for? the Balfour Declaration was in 1917, when Britain took what is now Syria, Jordan and Israel from the collapsing Ottoman Empire. Britain had decided then that they would support the Zionist cause, but it wasn't until 1947 that the UN resolution was put through, the same year Israel was formed.

that's the first world war by the way, the Nazis came along 15 years later.

Johro

Viper_JB wrote: »

Hamas was born out of a situation similiar to how the IRA came into being over here, both terrorist organisations but both were made to do what little they could to protect their people.

I condone none of their actions but their original intent was to protect their people. The palistinian people have gone through what can only be likened to a holocaust or mass ethnic extermination, at the hands of holocaust survivors. If this were to happen to any group of people I'd imagine a similiar terrorist group would form, what has happened to the palistian people over the last 60 years has been horrendous. I've always been amazed that people subjected to a similiar situation would be so callous about doing it to someone else.

Yup, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It's a shame that people have to resort to violence to get noticed but let's face it, Israel's government and most, but not all, of it's people aren't willing to give an inch. Yet they keep taking. Anyone here see the film 'Defamation'? It's by Jewish filmmaker Yoav Shamir. In it he explains how the Jewish organisation called the 'anti-defamation league' or ADL keep their people paranoid and afraid and refutes any criticism as 'anti-semitism'. It also shows a group of Israeli schoolkids on a trip to Europe, accompanied by 'bodyguards', and in particular their visit to Poland, where they are told to 'Keep your heads down' on the bus because 'Poles hate us Jews and they will throw stones and attack the bus if they see you'. This is followed by a visit to Auschwitz. Later in the hotel they are told to stay in their rooms for their own safety. They are constantly being reminded how people hate the Jews and not to talk to anyone. Watch the film. It will open your eyes to the tactics used not just by the Israeli's, but also the Jewish people in America.
Don't forget, these are the kids that will later be conscripted into the Israeli Defense Force.

Johro

Nodin wrote: »

I was unaware that (a) opposition to Israels policies equated to support of Hamas and (b) that Hamas was the sole, only and all-encompassing entity that represented the Palestinian people.

Cheers. It had to be said.

Terry

Fratton Fred wrote: »

when you write stuff like this, you make sense.

I can see both sides.

When you write stuff like this, you just come across as having a massive anti British chip on your shoulder.

I can see both sides.
You might not agree with my perspective here, but I'm just stating historical facts.

Out of curiosity, why do you insist on bringing my nationality into pretty much every response you make to me, or is it that when you go off on one of your rants you start showing your true colours?

While I may not post in the History and Politics forums, I do read the posts there.
Your posts there are truly astounding in a really ignorant manner.

Once again, I see things as they are. You can spin history in your favour, but it never changes the facts.

and wtf are you on about Germany for? the Balfour Declaration was in 1917, when Britain took what is now Syria, Jordan and Israel from the collapsing Ottoman Empire. Britain had decided then that they would support the Zionist cause, but it wasn't until 1947 that the UN resolution was put through, the same year Israel was formed.

that's the first world war by the way, the Nazis came along 15 years later.

Balfour was British. Balfour made headway for the creation of the state of Israel. Britain is responsible for the creation of the state of Israel, and by default, the current situation there.

1+1=2

Here's something you may not have been taught in school. The British empire was a travesty. It was a brutally oppressive regime which treated its subjects like scum. It was responsible for more slaughter than the nazis, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, French and Italians combined.

Your empire is gone. You need to learn to live with that fact. England, Scotland, Wales and NI are just four EU countries. They no longer control the world (apart from a few barely inhabited islands in insignificant parst of the world).

Would you like a hug?

Fratton Fred

Terry wrote: »

I can see both sides.


I can see both sides.
You might not agree with my perspective here, but I'm just stating historical facts.

So you agree that israel has a right to exist, yes? good. Why are you arguing then, or are you just doing it for the sake of it.

Terry wrote: »

While I may not post in the History and Politics forums, I do read the posts there.
Your posts there are truly astounding in a really ignorant manner.

Once again, I see things as they are. You can spin history in your favour, but it never changes the facts.

no you don't, you see them exactly how you want to see them, that is all.

anyone who doesn't agree no doubt is written off as a West Brit, imperialist sympathyser.

Terry wrote: »

Balfour was British. Balfour made headway for the creation of the state of Israel. Britain is responsible for the creation of the state of Israel, and by default, the current situation there.

1+1=2

Again, that is a very simplistic way of putting it. Is james Connolly responsible for the Irish civil war?

Terry wrote: »

Here's something you may not have been taught in school. The British empire was a travesty. It was a brutally oppressive regime which treated its subjects like scum. It was responsible for more slaughter than the nazis, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, French and Italians combined.

Your empire is gone. You need to learn to live with that fact. England, Scotland, Wales and NI are just four EU countries. They no longer control the world (apart from a few barely inhabited islands in insignificant parst of the world).

Would you like a hug?

Well Terry, you really do love having a dig at the British don't you? but why are you raising it on this thread. you see, this is where you make yourself look a bit silly.That has nothing to do with the thread and is just a direct dig at myself. it is not responding to anything I have said and is just you venting your own personal prejudices.

I would hug you, but you would probably think it is a deliberate act of violence from a nasty British imperialist.

Johro

Terry wrote: »

Balfour was British. Balfour made headway for the creation of the state of Israel. Britain is responsible for the creation of the state of Israel, and by default, the current situation there.

1+1=2

True. The Jewish people had an awful lot to do with it though.

Johro

Terry wrote: »

Here's something you may not have been taught in school. The British empire was a travesty. It was a brutally oppressive regime which treated its subjects like scum. It was responsible for more slaughter than the nazis, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, French and Italians combined.

Your empire is gone. You need to learn to live with that fact. England, Scotland, Wales and NI are just four EU countries. They no longer control the world (apart from a few barely inhabited islands in insignificant parst of the world).

Would you like a hug?

Again, I would agree, for the most part, with the first part of your post. I see no sense though in attacking a British person for the actions of his government and previous governments. If we all did that, we would just keep hating everyone forever.

Fratton Fred

Johro wrote: »

Again, I would agree, for the most part, with the first part of your post. I see no sense though in attacking a British person for the actions of his government and previous governments. If we all did that, we would just keep hating everyone forever.

yes, but if you blame everything on someone else, it makes you feel less conscious of your own short comings.

Whilst plenty of people disagree with my opinions, Terry is the only person who likes to keep bringing my nationality into the debate.

Johro

Fratton Fred wrote: »

yes, but if you blame everything on someone else, it makes you feel less conscious of your own short comings.

Whilst plenty of people disagree with my opinions, Terry is the only person who likes to keep bringing my nationality into the debate.

Sure looks like it.

Micky Dolenz

Terry, Fred, less of it please.

Kiss and make up or play elsewhere.

Back on topic please.

Star Bingo

cheeky monkey!

but sometimes frederick, i get the impression yer a jewish zionist! in judea!!

Johro

Star Bingo wrote: »

cheeky monkey!

but sometimes frederick, i get the impression yer a jewish zionist! in judea!!

There is that:D

Terry

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So you agree that israel has a right to exist, yes? good. Why are you arguing then, or are you just doing it for the sake of it.

I don't like that it exists, but to displace 5 millon people now would not be a good thing.
I accept that it exists. It should not have been put there in the first place, but it's there now and there is nothing that we can do about that.
Yes, we could exterminate the Jews, but that wouldn't really be nice. Mass slaughter is never a good thing. The children born into the state of Israel do not deserve to be punished for the sins of their fathers', or for the sins of the British government responsible for the displacement of the Palestinian people.

no you don't, you see them exactly how you want to see them, that is all.

No. I look at the facts
British politicians are responsible for the creation of the state of Israel. There is no denying of that fact.

anyone who doesn't agree no doubt is written off as a West Brit, imperialist sympathyser.

No. You are actually British.
I have never referred to anyone as a "West Brit".

Again, that is a very simplistic way of putting it. Is james Connolly responsible for the Irish civil war?

No. British imperialism is once again responsible for invading a country, taking land from people, and turning the people of a country against oneanother.

Well Terry, you really do love having a dig at the British don't you? but why are you raising it on this thread. you see, this is where you make yourself look a bit silly.That has nothing to do with the thread and is just a direct dig at myself. it is not responding to anything I have said and is just you venting your own personal prejudices.

Nope. Once again, I'm just pointing out facts.
The British empire was a brutal regime. You have shown time and again that you support the actions of your ancestors.
That's fair enough. You are entitled to your own opinion I disagree with it, but I would never deny you your chance to voice it.

Were I to make a direct dig at you, I'd call you a name. I have not done that, nor will I do that. As I said, you are entitled to your opinion.

What I will say is that I believe that your opinion has been skewed by your schooling. I may be wrong, but this is my belief.
You, like most British people, have been brought up to believe that the British empire was a good thing. The truth is that the British empire was just a brutal murderous regime operating under the guise of bringing civilisation to the world. It's similar to Dubya's plan for the middle East. Similar propaganda too.

Basically, I'm right and you are wrong.

I would hug you, but you would probably think it is a deliberate act of violence from a nasty British imperialist.

No, I wouldn't.
I know British people who can see past the propaganda and acknowledge the atrocities committed by their ancestors. I regularly hug them, but not for any political reasons.

Terry

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Terry, Fred, less of it please.

Kiss and make up or play elsewhere.

Back on topic please.

Sorry. Just scrolled up and saw that.
I'd delete my post, but FF may have subscribed to the thread and received an e-mail of my post.
I'm done.

Johro

Terry wrote: »

I don't like that it exists, but to displace 5 millon people now would not be a good thing.
I accept that it exists. It should not have been put there in the first place, but it's there now and there is nothing that we can do about that.

Now there's something we should all agree with.

Fratton Fred

Terry wrote: »

I don't like that it exists, but to displace 5 millon people now would not be a good thing.
I accept that it exists. It should not have been put there in the first place, but it's there now and there is nothing that we can do about that.
Yes, we could exterminate the Jews, but that wouldn't really be nice. Mass slaughter is never a good thing. The children born into the state of Israel do not deserve to be punished for the sins of their fathers', or for the sins of the British government responsible for the displacement of the Palestinian people.

you should read up on the Mandate for Palestine and the Zionist movement. As has already been said, Jews were flooding into the region from the 19th century onwards. The Balfour declaration and the LoN mandate for palestine confirmed what was going on, but it wasn't a straight forward, there you go Mr Goldstein here's two hundred acres of land, you can **** off Mr Hussain.

there are Zionist organisations that are highly critical of the British management of the region because they tried to impose quotas to try and stem the flood of Jews coming into the region, they even interned thousands in Cyprus for a while.

To be honest, Israel probably would have happened if the British weren't there, if the ottoman Empire was still in existence or even if the French were given the Mandate for Palestine, not Britain.

Terry wrote: »

Nope. Once again, I'm just pointing out facts.
The British empire was a brutal regime. You have shown time and again that you support the actions of your ancestors.
That's fair enough. You are entitled to your own opinion I disagree with it, but I would never deny you your chance to voice it.

Were I to make a direct dig at you, I'd call you a name. I have not done that, nor will I do that. As I said, you are entitled to your opinion.

What I will say is that I believe that your opinion has been skewed by your schooling. I may be wrong, but this is my belief.
You, like most British people, have been brought up to believe that the British empire was a good thing. The truth is that the British empire was just a brutal murderous regime operating under the guise of bringing civilisation to the world. It's similar to Dubya's plan for the middle East. Similar propaganda too.

Basically, I'm right and you are wrong.

No, I wouldn't.
I know British people who can see past the propaganda and acknowledge the atrocities committed by their ancestors. I regularly hug them, but not for any political reasons.

And you are telling me this because??

I'm biased because my education was in England, whereas your Irish Catholic education was totally fair and balanced??

I have never once defended any atrocities carried out in the name of the empire, but I don't believe in over exaggerating them or politicising them.

i also think you need to get things into context of the times as well.

As you kow the numbers, maybe you could tell us how many people Britain killed globally compared to say the Portugese (By far the largest slave traders), or the Spanish (where did all the south Americans go?) or the French (1,500,000 people killed in the Algerian war of independence alone).

I guess you can't because the brothers probably only ever talked about nasty protestant England.

Maybe the truth is somewhere in between what we both think.

Maybe we are both right.

That is a hug by the way;)