Reports: Israeli ships attack aid flotilla

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
If not then Israel is not Gaza and has not legal right to inspect or prohibit what goes in and out of it.

The Oslo Accords were signed by the Palestinian Authority.
It gives Isreal that right.

reply to post by makeitso


Israel is in severe violation of the Oslo Accords itself through building illegal settlements in the West Bank that the Oslo Accords prohibit.

So once again what we see is law being selectively applied.

You can't cite an accord that Israel is not adhering to itself as an enforceable instrument when it is not being applied evenly as an enforceable instrument to both sides.

Once Israel failed to honor the Oslo Accords itself it became an outdated unenforceable legal doctrine. When a law, accord or treaty is not adhered to it becomes desuetude (an outdated doctrine that causes statutes and similar legislation to become unenforceable by a habit of non-enforcement or lapse of time.) which is a Latin Legal Term that sets precedence in all such matters.

This is how the law works, in order for Israel to evoke the Oslo Accords it must in fact abide them, and allow them to be fully and evenly enforced to both signatories not just one.

Otherwise yes, once again, the law becomes a selective vehicle of oppression where one side is not bound by it at its discretion, but can choose to bind the other side by it at its discretion.

Dual standards, and selective enforcement of laws, makes law a mockery and leads to violence and war.

The law must represent equal justice and equal enforcement binding on both sides.

Israel has severely violated the Oslo Accords of its own accord, and turned them into outdated unenforceable doctrines as a result.


[edit on 6/6/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Have you seen evidence of a blockade by chance?

They are defined as an act of war. Have you seen evidence of Israeli Politicians in power in Gaza? If not then Israel is not Gaza and has not legal right to inspect or prohibit what goes in and out of it.

This blockade is nothing more than a defensive measure preventing weapons from entering Gaza, Nothing more nothing less, regardless of how you spin it.

We don't inspect what goes into Canada on the high seas, or prevent ships from reaching Canada, because the United States Inc, is not Canada see how that works?

We also recognise eachothers right to exist and don't resort to violence in leiu of negotiation and comprimise.

Originally posted by makeitso

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
If not then Israel is not Gaza and has not legal right to inspect or prohibit what goes in and out of it.

The Oslo Accords were signed by the Palestinian Authority.
It gives Isreal that right.

No! The blockade is illegal according to Security Council Resolution 1860.

And for the San Remo agreement and manual to be applicable& legit to the UN and International Law - Israel would need to declare war against Gaza and openly admit to be occupiers of occupied territories.

They have for obvious reasons not officially declared war against Gaza yet and if they would admit to be occupying and be occupiers, they would immediately be breaching the 4th Geneva Convention part 3 article 33 & 50

Article 33 is regarding Collective Punishments - Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited. Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime.

Article 50 - Care and education of children - they have been banning books and student material and pen/crayons and papers for the children of Gaza.

en.wikipedia.org...

The blockade is illegal according to International Law and the UN SEC Resolution 1860.

And they can't admit to be occupiers bcause they have already breached article 33 regarding collective punishments which is a warcrime according to the 4th Geneva.

The outrage from the the rest of the world is legit and should be taken serious - to say otherwise is really ignorant!

reply to post by mhc_70


Here is where your agrument bogs down, in that obviously Israel does not recognize Gaza's right to exist or it would not be blockading Gaza.

Where many people are failing in this war of words is words are not actions.

I can be hostile in my words yet my actions don't always back up that hostility, I can be peaceful in my words yet my actions aren't always as peaceful as the words I am using to sell and describe my actions to others.

Israel is engaged in an undeclared act of War against Gaza while claiming it has peaceful intentions and wants peace.

The actions do not equal the words.

The Blockade of Gaza is an illegal undeclared act of war.

Once again very simple when you stop trying to defend the dogmas.

So its rather absurd to pretend that Israel has more peaceful intentions than the Gazans do, who killed the people in international waters trying to deliver charity to Gaza, the Israelis or the Gazans?

The Palestinians are not without fault or political blunder as they have tried to respond to the aggressive advance of a migratory people intent on disenfranchising them from their land, and they too are guilty of having missed many opportunities to effect a different (not necessarily better because of the determination of the migratory agressors) outcome and committed many crimes themselves.

Their crime though is not killing people attempting to deliver charity, and their crime is not using armed force to regulate the flow of goods and what goods go into Israel, even though it certainly would be to their advantage to do so as a tremendous amount of weaponry does flow freely into Israel including weapons that Israel uses in violation of international laws against civilian populations in Gaza.

So it is a truly flawed argument. The Blockade is illegal, it's premise biased, the rules being applied different for each side, the standards being applied different for each side, to play a word game, where actions actually do not live up to the words or accurately reflect the words being employed.



[edit on 6/6/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by makeitso

 

Israel is in severe violation of the Oslo Accords itself through building illegal settlements in the West Bank that the Oslo Accords prohibit.

Palestine is in severe violation of the Oslo Accords itself through building illegal settlements throughout area C..

You can't cite an accord that Israel is not adhering to itself as an enforceable instrument when it is not being applied evenly as an enforceable instrument to both sides.

You can't cite an accord that Palestine is not adhering to itself as an enforceable instrument when it is not being applied evenly as an enforceable instrument to both sides.

This is how the law works, in order for Israel to evoke the Oslo Accords it must in fact abide them, and allow them to be fully and evenly enforced to both signatories not just one.

This is how the law works, in order for Palestine to evoke the Oslo Accords it must in fact abide them, and allow them to be fully and evenly enforced to both signatories not just one.

Israel has severely violated the Oslo Accords of its own accord, and turned them into outdated unenforceable doctrines as a result.

Palestine has severely violated the Oslo Accords of its own accord, and turned them into outdated unenforceable doctrines as a result.

You see how this works, right? Its not a one sided issue like you present.
Since your view is that the accords are broken, should we go back to before the Oslo Accords? Should Israel should go occupy Gaza again as before the Accords or should the Accdords be attempted to be maintained?

Until then the Accords do give Israel the legal right to do what they did.


[edit on 6/6/10 by makeitso]

Originally posted by Chevalerous
No! The blockade is illegal according to Security Council Resolution 1860.

No it does not. Below is the resolution.
Resolution 1860

And for the San Remo agreement and manual to be applicable& legit to the UN and International Law - Israel would need to declare war against Gaza and openly admit to be occupiers of occupied territories.

No it does not say that.

They have for obvious reasons not officially declared war against Gaza yet and if they would admit to be occupying and be occupiers, they would immediately be breaching the 4th Geneva Convention part 3 article 33 & 50

That is incorrect. I've already covered this material.

The blockade is illegal according to International Law and the UN SEC Resolution 1860.

Its posted above, and Ive already covered this area too.

And they can't admit to be occupiers bcause they have already breached article 33 regarding collective punishments which is a warcrime according to the 4th Geneva.

They are not occupying Gaza, they pulled out their military occupation after the Oslo Accords were signed.

The outrage from the the rest of the world is legit and should be taken serious - to say otherwise is really ignorant!

I can play that game too.

The outrage from the the rest of the world is illegit and should not be taken serious - to say otherwise is really ignorant!

Wow, I feel so empowered now. NOT.
What a silly way to discuss a situation.



[edit on 6/6/10 by makeitso]

reply to post by makeitso


So thank you, you have agreed in your round about way that the Oslo Accord is outdated and not enforcable as a legally binding document.

I will not bother you to document where you imagine the Palestinians have built illegal settlements in a land that has been theirs for thousands of years, but simply thank you for recognizing that your previous argument based on the Oslo Accords is not a valid one, for establishing the legality of an illegal blockade being conducted by Israel in violation of International Law by evoking the discareded and unhadered to Oslo Accords.

So now that you too have agreed that the Blockade has no legal basis in any form of law, where do we go from here in lifting this illegal blockade and restoring peace and prosperity to all people of the region?

Thanks.





[edit on 6/6/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by mhc_70

 

Here is where your agrument bogs down, in that obviously Israel does not recognize Gaza's right to exist or it would not be blockading Gaza.

Where many people are failing in this war of words is words are not actions.

I can be hostile in my words yet my actions don't always back up that hostility, I can be peaceful in my words yet my actions aren't always as peaceful as the words I am using to sell and describe my actions to others.

Israel is engaged in an undeclared act of War against Gaza while claiming it has peaceful intentions and wants peace.

The actions do not equal the words.

Well correct me if I am wrong, but this blockade has been inspecting vessels for several months if not a year or more. This is the first instance of violence, so it is not illogical to think that the boarding party was recieved in a different manner they were accostomed to.

The Blockade of Gaza is an illegal undeclared act of war.

That is one perspective.

Once again very simple when you stop trying to defend the dogmas.

So its rather absurd to pretend that Israel has more peaceful intentions than the Gazans do, who killed the people in international waters trying to deliver charity to Gaza, the Israelis or the Gazans?

I wonder how many of those you claim were delivering charity were seeking martyrdom?

The Palestinians are not without fault or political blunder as they have tried to respond to the aggressive advance of a migratory people intent on disenfranchising them from their land, and they too are guilty of having missed many opportunities to effect a different (not necessarily better because of the determination of the migratory agressors) and committed many crimes themselves.

There crime though is not killing people attempting to deliver charity, and there crime is not using armed force to regulate the flow of goods and what goods go into Israel, even though it certainly would be to their advantage to do so as a tremendous amount of weaponry does flow freely into Israel including weapons that Israel uses in violation of international laws against civilian populations.

So it is a truly flawed argument. The Blockade is illegal, it's premise biased, the rules being applied different for each side, the standards being applied different for each side, to play a word game, where actions actually do not live up to the words.

I agree there is a double standard, but mine is much different than yours.

I doubt the US reaction would be so kind if Cuba started popping missiles into Miami. No country would tolerate that, but yet Israel is supposed too.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by mhc_70]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by makeitso

 

So thank you, you have agreed in your round about way that the Oslo Accord is outdated and not enforcable as a legally binding document.


Thanks.

[edit on 6/6/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Um, like, not.
Such felacious statements you make silly.

The accords are in place until they are overridden by newer agreements. My or your agreement or disagreement on it is moot.

That was just silly.

[edit on 6/6/10 by makeitso]

reply to post by mhc_70


Actually you are incorrect at least one previous aide group that included a former American Congresswoman involved injuries when the Israeli Navy rammed their main vessels causing several injuries to passengers and crew and damage to the boat that then caused that flotilla to turn around.

In fact some of the aide from that effort was being sent on this effort that the thread is about.

Do you also suspect a former U.S. Congresswoman, a self labeled Christian, and self labeled Human Rights Activist to have also wanted to martyr herself or destroy the nation of Israel through delivering food, medicine and toys to the people of Gaza?

The sad thing is, until people drop their predispositions, labels and stereotypes on both sides of the coin, those who fail to are really an impediment to peace and standing in its way, by trying to assert through those stereo types that not only are things happening that are not happening, but that peace is impossible.

I urge anyone suffering from stereotypical thinking and behavior to step outside of the box and ask simple questions.

Do the same rules apply to both sides, it is a yes or no question, and the same rules either apply or do not.

Are the two sides equally empowered, it’s a yes or no question, they either are equally empowered or they are not.

Do each have access to the same tools, economically, media wise, militarily wise, and international body wise.

They either do or they don’t.

If people spent less time on imagining things, instead of being honest about what is really happening, it wouldn’t be this huge mess.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by mhc_70

 

Actually you are incorrect at least one previous aide group that included a former American Congresswoman involved injuries when the Israeli Navy rammed their main vessels causing several injuries to passengers and crew and damage to the boat that then caused that flotilla to turn around.

In fact some of the aide from that effort was being sent on this effort that the thread is about.

Do you also suspect a former U.S. Congresswoman, a self labeled Christian, and self labeled Human Rights Activist to have also wanted to martyr herself or destroy the nation of Israel through delivering food, medicine and toys to the people of Gaza?

The sad thing is, until people drop their predispositions, labels and stereotypes on both sides of the coin, those who fail to are really an impediment to peace and standing in its way, by trying to assert through those stereo types that not only are things happening that are not happening, but that peace is impossible.

I urge anyone suffering from stereotypical thinking and behavior to step outside of the box and ask simple questions.

Do the same rules apply to both sides, it is a yes or no question, and the same rules either apply or do not.

Are the two sides equally empowered, it’s a yes or no question, they either are equally empowered or they are not.

Do each have access to the same tools, economically, media wise, militarily wise, and international body wise.

They either do or they don’t.

If people spent less time on imagining things, instead of being honest about what is really happening, it wouldn’t be this huge mess.

I agree with you as long as all the parties acknowledge each ones right to exist. As long as one party openly refuses to and routinely resorts to violence over negotiations, they should be held in check by whatever means neccessary.

Originally posted by makeitso

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by makeitso

 

So thank you, you have agreed in your round about way that the Oslo Accord is outdated and not enforcable as a legally binding document.


Thanks.

[edit on 6/6/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Um, like, not.
Such felacious statements you make silly.

The accords are in place until they are overridden by newer agreements. My or your agreement or disagreement on it is moot.

That was just silly.

[edit on 6/6/10 by makeitso]

Then Israel is in severe violation of the Oslo Accords! It has built documented illegal settlements on the West Bank in Palestinian Territory in Violation of said accords.

So if you want to use the Accords as a vehicle for Israel to impose a blockade of Gaza, then Israel actually also has to abide by the accords too.

So now, we arrive at an important aspect of the problem, why would the Gazans trust Israel to be a partner for peace when Israel is not abiding by the Accords they have signed.

So once again you have in fact defeated your own arguments through attempting to use dual standards and selectively apply the rules for only the benefit of one side, while not causing that same side to have to abide by the rules, once again solely for it’s own benefit.

So then how would the machinations of such an entity selectively applying an agreement by either enforcing it to favor itself, and then alternately not enforcing it when it favors itself in other areas be seen as a credible or responsible entity by the other signatory being done real harm through those selective applications?

So not only are the laws not being applied evenly and consistently arguments for not applying the law evenly and consistently are not even or consistent.

Here is a hint for all people relying on circular logic, it does box you into a trap, and no matter which direction of the circle you travel towards to try to apply it, it always takes you back to the same trap.

Proto is not responsible for this circular logic, Proto did not build this trap, so if you find you are trapped in arguments that make no sense, and have no consistency, and lead you back to the same failed point of frustration, get outside the box.

Use real logic and common sense.

Abandon the political and religious dogmas, and be a good observer, and observe all things by the same scientific standards and apply them evenly.

Then you won't be trapped by circular logic!

You can be free! Free I tell you.

Now it is time for Proto to share a born free moment!





[edit on 6/6/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply to post by mhc_70


Neither party is getting along, and that is always a failure to communicate fully and honestly.

Both parties have bogged down in their communications for similiar reasons and similiar accusations.

Both parties are responsible for failure in this regard.

Where people are failing on both sides in the word game, is by trying to assign the lion's share of the blame on the other side, and then absolving their side from any blame in the process.

This is not logical or rational, and thus, those thinking in that way, are not taking responsibility, and in fact are an impedement to peace, and that is something both are guilty of, when they are not trying to honestly solve their disagreements through communication.

Neither side is more or less guilty of this, and where the dual standards arise is trying to make one side more or less quilty than the other side, to justify the use of dual standards.

That inclination is even a bigger impedement to peace.

The reality is when you clean up your own backyard, the neighbors really do stop complaining!

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by mhc_70

 

Neither party is getting along, and that is always a failure to communicate fully and honestly.

Both parties have bogged down in their communications for similiar reasons and similiar accusations.

Both parties are responsible for failure in this regard.

Where people are failing on both sides in the word game, is by trying to assign the lion's share of the blame on the other side, and then absolving their side from any blame in the process.

This is not logical or rational, and thus, those thinking in that way, are not taking responsibility, and in fact are an impedement to peace, and that is something both are guilty of, when they are not trying to honestly solve their disagreements through communication.

Neither side is more or less guilty of this, and where the dual standards arise is trying to make one side more or less quilty than the other side, to justify the use of dual standards.

That inclination is even a bigger impedement to peace.

The reality is when you clean up your own backyard, the neighbors really do stop complaining!

Again, I agree with you, but would you not agree that peace will only occur when both sides acknowledge eachothers right to exist?

reply to post by mhc_70


No peace occurs when people act peacefully and productively towards one another.

It's all about actions, words are rather meaningless and often hollow and often used to paint a false picture.

Personally I could care less if someone hates me and would like to see me dead, as long as they aren't trying to kill me, and pay me what ever bills are due and payable upon them, and they don't do anything to cause me problems.

I have had many people purport they are my friends and love me while actively engaged in stabbing me in the back.

I have had people I genuinely have little admiration or respect for turn around and do some incredibly kind and helpful things.

Life is about give and take, forming partnerships that work, creating things, and helping one another out.

Words spoken out of anger or love are often words not followed through with.

So the words are meaningless in both love and war, it's all about the actions.

When people get stuck on stupid, stupid things happen, a lot of people are stuck on stupid in regards to this issue.

It's not what people say, it's what they do. It's not what nations say, it's what they do.

We all know that's two entirely different things.

There is a lot of bad blood on both sides of this issue, each side actually involved through true involvement have people on both sides, that have suffered a great deal at the hands of someone else on the other side.

We can only imagine what such people have actually suffered and why. We can only imagine how they feel as a result of that, because we did not suffer the same thing, or objectively witness those events first hand that caused them to suffer.

Words are not going to soften such people's stances, only actions will, it is far easier to thaw a situation through actions than words.

It's like the Special Forces Commander in Afghanistan recently who after U.S. Soldiers killed civilians wiping out a whole father's family, he showed up in that village per Afghani tribal custom with a lamb as a gift, and surrendered himself to the Father's justice.

Custom dictates as a result the Father must forgive the man who commits such an act of customary appology.

Now it's important to note in the father's own words, he was contemplating becoming a suicide bomber to strike back at American forces.

It was that Special Forces Commander's acts not words that changed his mind.

So it's all about actions, and while the man was not inclined to forgive the American Forces for killing his young children, once something was done that would permit him to forgive in an accepted face saving way, he was grateful for the opportunity to fogive and did so.

The point is until the moment of that action, no that man's words would have never been kind or along the lines we would all want to hear.

Conversely the Special Forces Commander took a great risk in committing to that action for the benefit of his troops who would suffer the reprisal for their previous action.

So that act of taking responsibility and seeking forgiveness through real action and not words stopped the whole cycle.

As long as people on both sides insist on waging a war of words, very few people are going to act in positive ways as a result.

Once again that's just logic and common sense.

Thanks.

[edit on 6/6/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by mhc_70

 

No peace occurs when people act peacefully and productively towards one another.

It's all about actions, words are rather meaningless and often hollow and often used to paint a false picture.

I agree, but your putting the cart in front of the mule.

If a group is not even willing to express their desire for peace, it would be illogical to expect peace from them.

see my sig.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler


So if you want to use the Accords as a vehicle for Israel to impose a blockade of Gaza,

It is not me using the accords, it is both sides.

The accords are in place until new agreements are reached.

Israel's no-compromise attitude to aid convoys could be tested again after two Lebanese organisations pledged to send boats to Gaza in the next few days. Reporters Without Borders is attempting to assemble 25 European activists and 50 journalists for a boat leaving Beirut. The Free Palestine Movement is planning a similar attempt.

George Galloway, the founder of Viva Palestina, announced in London that two simultaneous convoys "one by land via Egypt and the other by sea" would set out in September to break the Gaza blockade. The sea convoy of up to 60 ships will travel around the Mediterranean gathering ships, cargowww.guardian.co.uk... and volunteers

Here is a new thread about above article
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by mhc_70


The best plans and intentions of mice and men often add up and turn out to naught.

The rhetoric in such political situations is just that rhetoric that is always aimed at one of two things or both. Shoring up your political base at home for the sake of a power base and control, or selling a bargaining position to other entities that is usually false.

Classic example Hitler's non-agression pact with the Soviety Union and Stalin.

Hey there was a right to exist statement that meant absolutely nothing, and was really just a strategy to do the opposite.

Now by contrast lets look at what is going on between America and China today. Good grief, talk about labels not fitting, China now has the second largest group of billionaires in the world.

A level of peace and cooperation has broken out between Cold War American and China that not only is not bound by each nation's idealogy but has all occured with very little rhetoric at all.

They are still "Godless Commies" and we are still "Soulless capitilists" in the war of words, yet they have actually bankrolled the United States for several years now, off of the profits from all the business we do with them.

One of the things that is allowing this odd relationship to develop in what some might argue are truly productive ways, is a real lack of expectation through words, that would not necessarily be lived up to or pan out.

No one is really asking for a lot of promises or gaurantees, some things are being purposefully over looked and not talked about by both sides, and a marraige of convenience is the result.

By the way the first love of my life romanitcally was a girl who hated me with a passion, and I wasn't too fond of her, she was though in a position to cause me and a friend, where we all worked some trouble though, and it was decided by my friend, that I should seduce her to prevent that.

I said are you nuts that girl hates me, and he replied yes I know, you are half way there already, it takes a lot of emotion and thought about another person to hate them, it's a thin line between love and hate that can turn on a dime.

So in reality we are almost there on this one. Strong emotions on both sides, that deep down really do love things about the other.

In that particular case it was my actions that won the girl over, words would have never done it, and in the early stages my actions were very suspect to the girl, so trying to use words then to underscore my actions would have had no effect either, it was only through consistency of action that she reversed her stance.

Both sides could use a copy of how to win friends and influence enemies.

The grave yards of nations and poeple are full of broken promises.

Words are just words. Actions are everything.