justinx0r:Hamas is very anti-Semitic. The al-Aqsa TV station portrays the Holocaust as something that was planned by Jews, among many other things. Their own charter says that Jews deserve to by destroyed. They believe in ridiculous 'evil Jooooos control the world' conspiracy theories. They are pure anti-Semites and brainwash their own children by implanting anti-Semitic messages in TV programs.
Also one thing you have to remember is that western media decontextualizes, misquotes, and flat out lies about middle eastern politics.
Although I totally wouldn't want to be a jew in one of the countries who hates isreal. The whole nationalist thing spills over to make the perception that all jews associated with the isreali state, though this is obviously wrong.
"Besides that Israel is a criminal state."
Oh yeah.. as oppose to its neighbor States or any other State for that matter... Right?
I think they should either:
Use their own guns in order to steal from us themselves
or get a job and pay for the Israeli weapons themselves.
Snowflake:"Hamas has repeatedly stated that their beef is with the isreali state rather than with jews. Folks in the middle east hate jews because of isreal, not the other way around."
Yes, and there offical words are to be trusted? And how much Jew would they be able to be under Islamic rule, Islamist politics don't exactly have room for tolerence, freedom of speech and that stuff. There is no way they could maintain living in any form of western culture where they are without becomming targets for Islamists even if they had a non-regional voluntary defence association that never bothered anyone who didn't bother there actual property....
Starting in 1870 and during the 20th centry there has been a mass exodus of Jews from most of the Arab world. That is not just because of the founding of the Brittish Mandate for Palistine (1920) and later the Zionist State, it is largley because of spreading anti-semitiism in the Arab world and the general poor position minorities had in these countries.
These people make child TV with people in animals suites saying that all Jews are evil and must be exterminated for fuck sake...
The video was removed but Saraa is a little girl and Nassur is a dude in bear-costume and there are other programs like this you can find:
Child on phone: “I want to kill them.” Saraa: “We don’t want to do anything to them, just expel them from our land.” Nassur: “We want to slaughter (Nidbah-hom) them, so they will be expelled from our land, right?” Saraa: “Yes. That’s right. We will expel them from our land using all means.” Nassur: “And if they don’t want [to go] peacefully, by words or talking, we’ll have to [do it] by slaughter.” (Shaht)
Though it is true some of the worst attrocities against Jews in the Holy Land started when the Crusaders arrived there and began murdering them....
Escaping Leviathan - regardless of public opinion
"Democracy is the road to socialism." - Karl Marx
hkarnoldson:Yes, and there offical words are to be trusted?
hkarnoldson:And how much Jew would they be able to be under Islamic rule, Islamist politics don't exactly have room for tolerence, freedom of speech and that stuff.
hkarnoldson:There is no way they could maintain living in any form of western culture where they are without becomming targets for Islamists even if they had a non-regional voluntary defence association that never bothered anyone who didn't bother there actual property....
hkarnoldson:Starting in 1870 and during the 20th centry there has been a mass exodus of Jews from most of the Arab world. That is not just because of the founding of the Brittish Mandate for Palistine (1920) and later the Zionist State, it is largley because of spreading anti-semitiism in the Arab world and the general poor position minorities had in these countries.
hkarnoldson:These people make child TV with people in animals suites saying that all Jews are evil and must be exterminated for fuck sake...
hkarnoldson:Nassur: “And if they don’t want [to go] peacefully, by words or talking, we’ll have to [do it] by slaughter.” (Shaht)
Im an anarchist too
Nonsense! Voluntary defense is the best defense!
Yeah but most muslims aren't anarchists especially not fundamentalist, Islam is a political religion. The alternative is not anarchy unfortunally, it is an Islamist state under which Jews wouldn't be any more free then muslims under Israeli rule.
If they tried to live under western "capitalism" they would become prime targets for all islamic hate against the west. But as I also have pointed out that in turn is much empowered by American foreign policy meddling in there countries. If all western nations adopted a policy of non-interventionism the support for islamic extremism would most likley subside to such low levels that the Jews maybe could be left alone in as long as they only protected there own property and didn't meddle with anyone.
But that is not going to happen either. So for the moment Israel is probably less evil then the alternative.
As an anarchist it is impossible to take a stand of any kind in this conflict, I am just trying to analyzie what is going and what would effects certain changes would have given the current world order.
hkarnoldson:The alternative is not anarchy unfortunally, it is an Islamist state under which Jews wouldn't be any more free then muslims under Israeli rule.
hkarnoldson:If they tried to live under western "capitalism" they would become prime targets for all islamic hate against the west
^I hope you can imagine the fact that most Muslims are not so hateful. The two sides here are the oppressors and the oppressed, I think anarchists should be able to tell what "side" they are on. Too many people here are not looking at the conditions of the Palestinians, and act as if an oppressed people will have all the sense, logic and knowledge that more stable nations may. Stop taking such easy stances out of convenience, your anarchists for God's sake.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Quote by hkarnoldson:"Yeah but most Muslims aren't anarchists especially not fundamentalist, Islam is a political religion. The alternative is not anarchy unfortunally, it is an Islamist state under which Jews wouldn't be any more free then muslims under Israeli rule."
Well most people aren't anarchists. You're making assumptions about Islam- any laws in Quran regarding Islam is for Muslims only. There is no real hierarchy of leadership. What could be considered an "Islamist" state is pretty vague. Pakistani laws are very different from Saudi laws which are very different from Indonesian laws.
Quote by hkarnoldson:"If they tried to live under western "capitalism" they would become prime targets for all islamic hate against the west."
What makes you say that? Islam is not against capitalism or free-trade. I don't think Muslims associate free-trade as a concept that only the west thought up.
Quote by LibertyandLife:"I hope you can imagine the fact that most Muslims are not so hateful. The two sides here are the oppressors and the oppressed, I think anarchists should be able to tell what "side" they are on. Too many people here are not looking at the conditions of the Palestinians, and act as if an oppressed people will have all the sense, logic and knowledge that more stable nations may. Stop taking such easy stances out of convenience, your anarchists for God's sake."
Simply put. The situation for the Palestinians is that they feel completely hopeless and that no change will ever be brought about. They're poor, destitute, hungry, and have been living to the point that they don't care what happens to them. When other ethnic groups are put into the same types of situations, they don't do so well either.
^Exactly, suicide bombings (or suicides in general) come from extremely desperate conditions.
And how much Jew would they be able to be under Islamic rule, Islamist politics don't exactly have room for tolerence, freedom of speech and that stuff. There is no way they could maintain living in any form of western culture where they are without becomming targets for Islamists even if they had a non-regional voluntary defence association that never bothered anyone who didn't bother there actual property....
Sadly, you don't know what you're talking about. The tensions between the "Islamists" and the Jews is both entirely manufactured and a recent phenomenon. The Jews and Muslims lived together in peace for a thousand years. In fact, Judaism is much closer (theologically speaking) to Islam then it is to Christianity. Indeed, the Jews were allowed to, and often did, pray in Islamic mosques. "Islamic fundamentalism" is not fundamentalism at all, but rather the inevitable response to 60 years of political slavery and oppression. The "Islamic fundamentalists" lose credibility every single day, and they would lose what's left of their credibility much faster if America and Israel stoped bombing their homes, places of worship, ect.
I'd also like to point out that it wasn't the Muslims that killed 6 million Jews in the last century, but rather white Europeans who were supposed to be Christians.
Israel is the brainchild of evangelical American fundamentalists and atheist Zionists. The evangelical's are trying to end the world (literally), and the Zionists merely want power. The bible says that the world will end when the Jews return to the holy land (Israel) and when they rebuild Solomon’s temple (the Dome of the Rock, Islam's third holiest site, is currently on its location).
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
But aren't you forgetting that for those thousands of years the Jews and the Arabs had common enemies. The Hellenistic civilzation, the Roman Empire and then Christans: The Byzantine Empire and the Crusaders and also some Mongols.
During the Arab rule between the Byzantine Empire and the Crusades the muslims built mosques on Jewish holy grounds. After the crusade the Islamic-Mahluk rule imposed restrictions on where the Jews could worship.
Later the Ottoman Empire came along which allowed most minorites pretty good autonomy. But I don't think that came from the goodness of the Sultans heart, it is simply and efficent to way to rule a vast empire. This would probably be much more difficult to accomplish without the emperial buracracy enforing it on the rulers of it's provinces. A strong more ethically pure small state is more likley to oppress it's minorities.
Muslim nation-building can take various forms. But I think the more likley to spring out of Palestine today is something resembling Iran rather then something resembling North-Africa ... or the Ottoman Empire.
I think there are other reasons they did get along relativly well, that wouldn't necessarly work today.
What is also importaint is the way they fight. Israel fight in the open with cleary marked combatants, try to avoid placing military targets next to civilans and mostly engage targets with some kind of military value. Hamas and the likes on the other hand focus exclusivly on civilan targets, don't mark there combatants and hide in the civilan population. Such an enemy is impossible to fight without massive collateral damage. If they at least tried to bomb soldiers and governmet buildings...that would make it so much easier to symatize.
(the Dome of the Rock, Islam's third holiest site...)
It's always interested me how one could possibly rank holy places? In any case, the Dome bears no major significance in Islamic theology or history. Its "special status" is a modern invention which became expedient when the dreaded Jews took control of Jerusalem. It's a propaganda ploy, and a good one at that: a Jewish temple set upon by a Christian church finally set upon by an Islamic mosque. How symbolic.
Anybody taking sides in Statist conflicts is a statist himself. The discontent with Israeli policies by libertarians is such an hypocrisy, it makes me sick!
If you go and side with Statist palestinians fighting for their alleged "freedom" from Israeli occupation just so that they can set up their own welfare/warfare State and slaughter their own people, then you deserve a medal for Statist of the year.
I think this itself is very good evidence of what happens to people who don't have a state; they end up being enslaved by people who do.
This is where Mohammed ascended into heaven, and it's the oldest Islamic monument that stands today. This gives it a lot of religious significance.
To spinn-off on the later part of my message why the Hamas don't lay down there weapons makes no sense. They go a sympatetic ear from much of the worlds population and even most european governments these day. And that is despite there habit of blowing up children. If they just stopped doing that would Israel really have any other option then to pull out of the occupied areas?
The only explination to this I can find is that they are being used and brainwashed to for a larger agenda...
They believe in ridiculous 'evil Jooooos control the world' conspiracy theories. They are pure anti-Semites...
. When U.S. citizens and U.S. civilian boats are attacked in international waters by Israelis and the U.S. government won't even condemn it, it DOES create a impression that the U.S. government is being malignly influenced by foreign interests.
The Israeli government is today the main fountainhead of anti-Semitism, in the same way that the U.S. government is today the main cause of anti-Americanism . People see Israelis and 'friends of Israel' encouraging the U.S. to fight wars in the Middle East, starving Gazans, bombing civilians with chemical weapons etc. etc. all while waving flags with stars of David on them. Other people then take the Israelis at their word that they are a 'Jewish State' and that these types of actions represent Jewish identity. One could even say that Israel has a perverse incentive to encourage anti-semitism in the world, because protecting Jews from anti-semitites is Israel's raison d'etre and something which creates more Jewish immigration to Israel. Israel badly needs Jewish immigrants, because the Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank are having children way faster than the Israelis are, and they'll soon be a majority within Israel's informal borders if current trends continue.
That's the real reason for the Gaza blockade, of course.
Here's my problem with this whole thing: even if we grant that Israel is an illigitimate country, and that the original Palestinians were unjustly forced out of their homes back when it was first established....
Are we expected to believe that present-day Palestians are willing to get get blown up just for the grudge of giving up the tiny area of Israel, and the few thousands of people who were forced out who are now virtually all long dead?
You have to believe that there's something much more sinister going on here; dare I say, ideological.
(Also, the additional land that Israel seized were following winning the wars which the arab countries started. So that's pretty reasonable in my view.)
The Quranic verse used to justify Al-Aqsa's status refers to Mohammed's "night flight". Firstly, it is stated as a dream and, secondly, refers to him going to "the nearest mosque and the furtherest mosque". Jerusalem was not in Islamic hands during Mohammed's lifetime, nor was there a mosque there. It's clear the verse is referring to Mecca and Medina. As I said previously, Al-Aqsa's special status in the Islamic world is a modern political invention and, based on the theological reasoning put forward for this status, is clearly a sham.
As for Al-Aqsa being the "oldest" Islamic monument, I seriously doubt that. Compared to the Kaaba in Mecca?
"When U.S. citizens and U.S. civilian boats were attacked in international waters by Israelis and the U.S. government won't even condemn it, it DOES create a impression that the U.S. government is being malignly influenced by foreign interests. "
First of all, the Mavi Marmara is a Turkish ship.
http://indonesiafirst.com/2010/06/mv-mavi-marmara-passenger-ship/
Secondly, according to maritime law, ships can be stopped in international waters if:
"SECTION VI : CAPTURE OF NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND GOODS 146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they: (a) are carrying contraband; (b) are on a voyage especially undertaken with a view to the transport of individual passengers who are embodied in the armed forces of the enemy; (c) are operating directly under enemy control, orders, charter, employment or direction; (d) present irregular or fraudulent documents, lack necessary documents, or destroy, deface or conceal documents; (e) are violating regulations established by a belligerent within the immediate area of naval operations; or (f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade."
According to paragraph 67:
"SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT Neutral merchant vessels 67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they: (a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;"
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce
At the point that the flotilla refused to be stopped and searched, they became a warship and Israel was well within its legal rights to attack them.
"That's the real reason for the Gaza blockade, of course."
No the blockade was imposed in response to Hamas rocket attacks on Israel:
"Why can Israel decide what goes in and what can't?”
Ms. Weiss Maudi responded, “In order to answer that question, we need to think about the events of the past few years. In 2005, Israel completed its disengagement plan and completely withdrew from the Gaza Strip, so that no Israeli military or civilian presence remained in the Gaza Strip. The disengagement plan ended Israel's effective control of the Gaza Strip after almost 40 years of effective control… What currently exists is a state of armed conflict.”
She added that though Israel had hoped “that the disengagement would be used as a springboard for more positive relations with our neighbors in Gaza, in actuality, the opposite occurred. Instead of positive relations happening, the terrorist organization of Hamas seized power in Gaza and stepped up the rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli communities and towns in Israel proper adjacent to the Gaza Strip.”
“Therefore, in light of the Hamas-sponsored attacks on Israeli civilian targets, Israel undertook a number of measures against the Hamas regime. One of these measures is the imposition of economic sanctions against the Hamas regime in Gaza… Under international law, every state gets to decide what goes in and out of its borders. Also under international law, every state gets to decide whether it wants to forge economic relationships with any entity or state. Similarly, a country has a sovereign right to decide whether to impose economic sanctions on any enemy state or entity."
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/137728
I don't think the Kaaba is considered a "structure." But I said monument, so you're right. I think the Dome of the Rock is the oldest Islamic "structure."
re: bloomj31
The Challenger I, one of the boats in the Free Gaza flotilla, is a U.S. flagged ship, which by law makes it U.S. territory:
http://www.freegaza.org/en/home/press-releases/1189-as-american-as-apple-pie
Also, your own citation of maritime law starts with "Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if..."
The Free Gaza flotilla were inside neutral, i.e. international waters, when they were boarded. This can be taken as an act of war by any state whose vessel was boarded, under international law.
Israel has every legal right to stop ships and search them once they have entered its territorial waters, or to demand they turn away, at the boundary of their territorial waters. No state has the right to search the merchant vessel of another state in international waters, as the law you've just cited says. This is really very clear-cut.
Also, you keep saying that Israel has a right to determine what goes into Israel. Ok, fine, but that statement only makes sense if the Gaza strip = Israel. You're also referencing the term "blockade." A "blockade" is a military term; in fact under international law, a blockade is an act of war. A state cannot blockade itself; a blockade is what one warring state does to another warring state.
"A blockade is defined by the Encyclopedia Britannica as "an act of war by which a belligerent prevents access to or departure from a defined part of the enemy’s coasts."
You can't have it both ways; if Gaza is part of Israel, then it's called customs, not a blockade; if it's a blockade, Gaza is not part of Israel, but a rival state that Israel is at war with; so you should be saying "Israel has a right to decide what goes into and out of Gaza," if that's what you believe.
And no, no state can stop ships in international waters to perform customs searches, period. That is called state piracy.
If you are claiming that what Israel is doing is a blockade, then you are also saying that Gaza is an independent state and that Israel has no claim to Gazan territory; that Gaza has a government, and that Israel is currently legally at war with the government of Gaza.
I'm sorry, but words have meanings, especially in law.
Are you actually going to cite any law Benjamin?
Echoes of the Past in Israeli Ship Raid
It was a military raid on a civilian ship bound for Palestine, carried out in the international waters of the Mediterranean to prevent the boat from reaching its blockaded destination.
When the soldiers boarded they met with stiffer resistance than they expected, and so they used force, killing some of the passengers and injuring many others.
The commandeered ship was towed to port and the survivors were detained, before being deported amid a storm of international condemnation.
The year was 1947, and the boat - the Exodus 1947- was carrying Jewish refugees seeking to land without the permission of the British military force in charge of Palestine...
"Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters"
how's that for a citation?
Egypt shares a border with Gaza. They keep it closed, mostly to malign responsibility for the territory. Interestingly, Hamas rejected the 750-odd tons of aid these ships brought with them. Egypt has now opened up their border. Of course, if these "humanitarian" groups were actually interested in the well-being of Palestinians and not silly PR stunts they should be flocking into Egypt's ports to get aid in via that border. Are they doing this now? Nope.
Ok Benjamin, you clearly have no laws to cite. Thanks, just wanted to make sure.
Just to be clear, I didn't ask you for a history lesson or a guess as to what the geopolitical reaction will be.
@Benjamin: Interesting article for ya.
Actually Benjamin blockades can be legally enforced on international waters. Normally maritime laws requires that the blockade is sanctioned by the UN Security Council for this. But as long as the US supports the blockade of Gaza I don't see how boarding US flagged ship headed there in internation waters can be any form of legal violation.
But to your favor I seem to rember a certain boat belonging to the US Navy being bombed by the Israeli Air Force during a certain war killing 171 american sailors and no one seemed to care then either...
von Vodka:Here's my problem with this whole thing: even if we grant that Israel is an illigitimate country, and that the original Palestinians were unjustly forced out of their homes back when it was first established.... Are we expected to believe that present-day Palestians are willing to get get blown up just for the grudge of giving up the tiny area of Israel, and the few thousands of people who were forced out who are now virtually all long dead? You have to believe that there's something much more sinister going on here; dare I say, ideological. (Also, the additional land that Israel seized were following winning the wars which the arab countries started. So that's pretty reasonable in my view.)
You are revealing a stupendous amount of ignorance.
Besides that Israel is a criminal state. I can't remember who said it, but someone on this forum wrote something along the lines of "Israel is some artificially made welfare state on some shoddy piece of real estate", or to that extent.
Stolen piece of real estate:
@ Hard Rain,
check out the comments section of that article.
The whole issue of Gaza is that Israel claims "it's theirs" while also trying to apply the laws of war to it, as if Gaza were a foreign state. It's contemptible nonsense.
But as long as the US supports the blockade of Gaza I don't see how boarding US flagged ship headed there in internation waters can be any form of legal violation.
Gaza is an occupied territory, and occupied foreign territories are themselves illegal. The U.S. could not legally blockade Iraq, because Iraq is an illegally occupied territory of the U.S., not a state the U.S. is legitimately at war with.
The question itself is asinine. It's basically like asking "can I legally lock someone in their basement while I'm robbing their house?" It doesn't even make sense.
Oh, and speaking of which, Israel apparently killed a 19-year old American in their military assault on humanitarian aid ships in international waters.
Execution style too: four bullets in the head at close range and one in the chest.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/world/middleeast/04flotilla.html?hp
I'm sure people will say "they had to kill him execution style in self defense, after they illegally snuck aboard his boat in the middle of the night armed with the most advanced modern weapons to prevent him from bringing hummus, writing paper and spices to Gaza."
benjamin:execution style too: four bullets in the head at close range and one in the chest.
Quote by Von Vodka:"Are we expected to believe that present-day Palestians are willing to get get blown up just for the grudge of giving up the tiny area of Israel, and the few thousands of people who were forced out who are now virtually all long dead?
You have to believe that there's something much more sinister going on here; dare I say, ideological."
You only have to believe that if you completely ignore the living standards of Palestinians and act as if they're living a normal life. They're living under severe oppression and occupation. When they feel like they might die at anytime- some people rather die by their own hands than by someone else's.
Ensuric:"The bible says that the world will end when the Jews return to the holy land (Israel) and when they rebuild Solomon’s temple"
You just said that Israel is the brainchild of "atheist Zionists". So a little consistency here please. The above bible babble, therefore, should be irrelevant, according to you.
Esuric:The bible says that the world will end when the Jews return to the holy land (Israel) and when they rebuild Solomon’s temple (the Dome of the Rock, Islam's third holiest site, is currently on its location).
Where in the bible does it say this? Quote?
Marko: "Stolen piece of real estate:"
[Pathetic statist propaganda map]
Your map is nothing but statist propaganda. Most of that land was not settled so how can all of that been stolen? That map of "stolen land" can only make sense from a collectivist statist point of view. The map even says: Palestinian public land!!!!
Amazing how libertarian theory regarding private property is just conveniently brushed aside so you can express your inherent bias towards one group over the other.
What are the Palestinian liberation movements fighting for? To reclaim some previously confiscated private property to its alleged original owners, or to establish a tyrannical State of their own?
You're no different from Bloomberg but only taking the opposing side. At least he's not claiming to be a Libertarian.