elixstrange: This is illegal under article 49 under the Geneva conventions.
...

look at the FOURTH geneva conventions

Sloth_DC: Egypt kept Gaza for 20 years, Jordan kept the West Bank for 20 years (and formally annexed it no less), the Turks have kept their part of Cyprus to this day, and the Soviets kept a lot of shiat for 40+ years. So, umm, yes. Oh, yeah, and let's not forget Tibet.

Aren't those all lands they obtained either before WWII or not through warfare?

felixstrange: This is illegal under article 49 under the Geneva conventions.

Finally found the citation for this:

4th Geneva Convention - Part III - Article 49

Turkeyhead

That's funny. Israel attacks Palestinians, Hamas' response: "Attack America! They are responsible!"

Well this year they have 2.5 billion reasons to not be keen on america. Its not like they are ignoring Israel, they just are also pissed off with the largest backer of Israel in the world. I don't see why this is unreasonable to you.

Persepolis: Aren't those all lands they obtained either before WWII or not through warfare?

No, those were all obtained post-WW2 through warfare. Jordan and Egypt invaded the Palestinian territories and annexed them in 1948. The Soviets invaded numerous Eastern European countries post-WW2 and kept them.

Egypt kept Gaza for 20 years, Jordan kept the West Bank for 20 years (and formally annexed it no less), the Turks have kept their part of Cyprus to this day, and the Soviets kept a lot of shiat for 40+ years. So, umm, yes. Oh, yeah, and let's not forget Tibet.

...

So are you lumping in israel with all those criminal regimes?

Sloth_DC: No, those were all obtained post-WW2 through warfare. Jordan and Egypt invaded the Palestinian territories and annexed them in 1948. The Soviets invaded numerous Eastern European countries post-WW2 and kept them.

And these weren't considered illegal actions?

I think you're right, Persepolis. They probably figure that since the US is "pulling Israel's strings" so to speak that they are ultimately responsible for the violence. Still no excuse for being retards though.

Their train of thought must go something like this:
Step 1)Israel attacks Step 2)??? Step 3)Blame America

Protesting Saddam's projected short drop and sudden stop.

Turkeyhead: Their train of thought must go something like this:
Step 1)Israel attacks Step 2)??? Step 3)Blame America

It may have something to do with the fact that the weapons which blow the up and the helicopters which shoot at them are purchased from America.

Lalalala


It's disgusting when any innocents die on either side.

What's a Palestinian "innocent" exactly?

To all who complain this article is from the Guardian UK (and therefore "biased"):

(1) The Guardian UK is a fairly reliable and biased source. (Got any examples that show otherwise? Post 'em.) That said...

(2) Here is a source that you can't brush off as "those anti-Semitic Brits."

filth: "They also trumpeted the Jenin "massacre" and the "shelling" of the family at the beach (the one that turned out to be a Hamas bomb)."

Where did you read that this turned out to be a Hamas bomb? Please provide a source, I am genuinely curious. The last thing I read on the matter contradicts your statement.

felixstrange: 4th Geneva Convention - Part III - Article 49

That's the one I cited earlier - natives may not be permanently forcibly displaced from territory conquered.

I presume you're referencing this: "the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

The problem here is that Gaza and the West Bank are hard to define as occupied territories - they belong to no other nation, having been disclaimed by the previous owners. That being said, the settlement of them by Israeli settlers is, at the least, a moral wrong.

Turkeyhead: Still no excuse for being retards though.


Oh no, not at all. Terrorists are assholes. I don't think anyone can argue against that.

Their train of thought must go something like this:
Step 1)Israel attacks Step 2)??? Step 3)Blame America

More like 1)America gives $$$ to Israel 2)Israel attacks 3) Blame America.


But it works both ways see?:

1)Iran gives $$$ to hezbollah 2)Hezbollah attacks 3)Blame Iran

FarkinNortherner: It's a direct quote.

Feel free to click on the link I provided. To recap: I asserted that The Guardian made a huge stink about Jenin without sufficient evidence. You posted something apparently contradictory. I responded with a link to The Guardian having to eat crow. Hence, Filth rules all FarkinNortherners

It's an entirely contradictory direct quote which, significantly, pre-dates your op-ed piece. You also said "The Guardian would republish The Protocols of the Elders of Zion if it could get away with it" which, particularly in the context of the preceding quote, is laughably hyperbolic.

Why are British people so anti-Semitic?

Too much time spent around whiny, disingenuous, Jews with an ingrained persecution complex ?

Here is the same story from the Israeli press. The details are essentially the same.

Persepolis: And these weren't considered illegal actions?

The Soviet conquests were protested in the West, but not seriously contested, nor was any legal action taken. There was no serious contest of the Egyptian and Jordanian conquest of Gaza and the West Bank.

Sloth_DC: The Soviet conquests were protested in the West, but not seriously contested, nor was any legal action taken. There was no serious contest of the Egyptian and Jordanian conquest of Gaza and the West Bank.


So no cold war or Israeli ownage action?

Guess those kids won't be throwing anymore rocks at tanks.

/Didn't RTFA

Oooops... (Mods feel free to delete previous post)

Here is the same story from the Israeli press. The details are essentially the same.

Wow - I wish I could say that's a new low for israel

Sloth_DC: The problem here is that Gaza and the West Bank are hard to define as occupied territories - they belong to no other nation, having been disclaimed by the previous owners.

I feel we're getting into semantics here. It's certainly not a black and white case, but it's not very defensible either (my only point).

That being said, the settlement of them by Israeli settlers is, at the least, a moral wrong.

I agree. That kind of hostile colonization inevitable leads to multi-generational strife (see Northern Ireland).

felixstrange:
What about the weapons Israel manufactures? The US doesn't produce Israel's Merkava tank. What if Israel used captured Hamas equipment? Would they then blame themselves? Blaming the seller of equipment for the use of the equipment would be like blaming a candy store owner for making you fat. It just doesn't make sense.

Peace follows victory. Somebody needs to win this thing once and for all.
UXO

Persepolis: So no cold war or Israeli ownage action?

The Israeli ownage was against attempts to also annex Israel - they did not seriously contest the annexation of Gaza and the West bank. As for the Cold War - we resisted the annexation of Greece and Berlin, but did not seriously contest the annexation of the other Soviet acquisitions.

Just remember, srhp29, the natives were busy killin' each other before we got here, too. And they kept killing each other as the Europeans expanded, taking the opportunity to settle old scores with new military tech like horses and guns before being overwhelmed in turn. Hell, there were tribes of cannibals in Texas, Florida, and the Caribbean when teh white man arrived.

HAHAH..you just justified the stealing of OUR nation by saying they were killing each other anyway? And Arabs haven't killed each other throughout history? Your rationalization is just that...

My point was...Land changes hands (must of the time through force)...That's the way of the world and always has been...People want to piss and moan about the poor people of the palestine area, but don't give a first Sh*t about the fact that they are living on land stolen from native people...It is a joke...

I suppose they live by the mantra...it isn't my fault...yeah, well neither is the Israel/Palestine issue...

Are we at a stopping point?

Sloth_DC: The Israeli ownage was against attempts to also annex Israel - they did not seriously contest the annexation of Gaza and the West bank. As for the Cold War - we resisted the annexation of Greece and Berlin, but did not seriously contest the annexation of the other Soviet acquisitions.


Just because someone didn't seriously contest them doesn't prove that they weren't considered illegal actions. Also, did people settle these areas, or simply occupy them with troops?

There was no serious contest of the Egyptian and Jordanian conquest of Gaza and the West Bank.
...

you make this statement trying to twist it to make it seem like Egypt invaded gaza! They MOVED into gaza to fight the Zionists in the 1948 war.. They weren't fighting the indigenous palestinians... Nice try though, most wingnuts won't catch that one.

Turkeyhead: What if Israel used captured Hamas equipment? Would they then blame themselves?

No, but they might have a wee problem with the Hamas members which sold them the ordnance.

Blaming the seller of equipment for the use of the equipment would be like blaming a candy store owner for making you fat. It just doesn't make sense.

I think you're oversimplifying here. America provides Israel with lots and lots of American weapons (the Apache most notably for the Palestinians) and also provides them with tons of foreign aide.

I don't think it's so hard to see why the Palestinians are resentful.

I don't

Sloth_DC: Are we at a stopping point?

Good enough I guess. I mean, personally, the way I see it, if it violates the geneova convention, then it's an illegal action.

Persepolis: Just because someone didn't seriously contest them doesn't prove that they weren't considered illegal actions. Also, did people settle these areas, or simply occupy them with troops?

The Egyptians settled more than the Jordanians, but neither was really significant. The Soviets, on the other hand, were big into mass resettlements.

We should have let Hitler finish what he started.

sakul:
"...twist it to make it seem like Egypt invaded gaza! They MOVED into gaza to fight the Zionists..."

That's good, can I use it?

We -really- need to shut down the white US military satellite known as Israel. Seriously, can it be more blantant that they are our white military anchor we maintain so that we can attack the brown people with the oil when we need to? Pathetic.

Sloth_DC: The Soviets, on the other hand, were big into mass resettlements.

Ok, last question then I'm done. And you're being a sport for putting up with these, but here it goes. What were these soviet aqusitions post WWII, that they got through military force?

sakul: you make this statement trying to twist it to make it seem like Egypt invaded gaza! They MOVED into gaza to fight the Zionists in the 1948 war.. They weren't fighting the indigenous palestinians... Nice try though, most wingnuts won't catch that one.

Yeah, actually, they were fighting the indigenous Palestinians - the Zionists weren't *in* Gaza, nor did they attempt to absorb it in 1948. The Mufti of Jerusalem got royally farked - mostly by the Jordanians, but by the Egyptians, too.

felixstrange:
I see what you're saying, and I can understand the view of the Palestinians. I just think it's dumb. If somebody was shooting at me, I'd be pissed at him, not the guy that sold him the gun.

Persepolis: Ok, last question then I'm done. And you're being a sport for putting up with these, but here it goes. What were these soviet aqusitions post WWII, that they got through military force?

Off the top of my head? Hungary and the Baltic States, but I'm probably missing a few.

Turkeyhead: If somebody was shooting at me, I'd be pissed at him, not the guy that sold him the gun.

Agreed. Not the most rational response, but anger is seldom rational.

FarkinNortherner: "Too much time spent around whiny, disingenuous, Jews with an ingrained persecution complex?"

Theres not a single reason Jews might have a persecution complex. 6 million plus reasons over a few thousand years maybe, but not a single one...

/not defending Israel so stop before you start
//effingnortherner teetering over the edge of anti-Israel sentiment and into something else...

Sloth_DC: Off the top of my head? Hungary and the Baltic States, but I'm probably missing a few.

Alright, I never knew.

It's messed up though. Saddam started a war with Iran, and after nearly a decade of bloodshed, the Iranians pushed halfway to baghdad, but the international community made them give back the land after the war.

If it was such a landgrab, they should have just said no.

damageddude: Why is barely a word said when terrorists fire shells into playgrounds in Israel? Why can't Israel go on the offensive against Gaza's terror infrastructure?

So what kind of 'legitimate' resistance could palestine offer that doesn't amount to suicide or "terrorism"?

Raindogday

Oh you know how it is to be Canadian, we have to put extra "u"s in everything.

Persepolis

How does it help? Perpetual war for the Military-Industrial complex. Just like Iraq. Who or what does our occupation and the unrest benefit? IMHO.

Turkeyhead

felixstrange:
I see what you're saying, and I can understand the view of the Palestinians. I just think it's dumb. If somebody was shooting at me, I'd be pissed at him, not the guy that sold him the gun.

If you are involved in a fight, and someone comes along and gives the other guy a weapon, would you still have no problem with that other guy? (And to a large extent it is give, $51 billion of direct military aid has gone from the US to Israel, so 'sold' is an oversimplification)

eah, actually, they were fighting the indigenous Palestinians - the Zionists weren't *in* Gaza, nor did they attempt to absorb it in 1948. The Mufti of Jerusalem got royally farked - mostly by the Jordanians, but by the Egyptians, too.

...

hahahaha! Your ignorance is hilarious...! You should go away now.

Farking Sweet: How does it help? Perpetual war for the Military-Industrial complex. Just like Iraq. Who or what does our occupation and the unrest benefit? IMHO.

Come on, it's not the 1940s anymore and wars cost more money to maintain than they make.

I mean, it's not like the whole country has mobilized for anything. We don't have people lining up at the docks to rivit ships anymore.

We just have a bigger and bigger debt with decreasing public support. I honestly can't think that people would choose to maintain the war, it does more harm than good.