Gaza under attack by Israel

[pcosmar]

True, that area has been in conflict for thousands of years.

Where does this come from?
Not picking on you Dr.3D,, but I have heard this often.

Except for the wars of Empires,, and changing empires, that area is more peaceful than not.
People of various religious faiths have lived together and peacefully coexisted. For the most part.

Even as far back as the "Crusades",, which was just empire expansion under the guise of religion.

[ClydeCoulter]

Found this beauty on facebook from a tea party page that was liked by one of my zionist israel-firster "friends". Where to start with these morons?

sigh...

(Images removed)

Does noone ever read the Old Testement? God tells them to kill every man, woman, child and even all the cattle, everything alive... really?

[AuH20]

Hamas. Noble freedom fighters......Yeah right

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,6497236.story

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri hailed the explosion.

"Hamas blesses the attack in Tel Aviv and sees it as a natural response to the Israeli massacres...in Gaza," he told Reuters. "Palestinian factions will resort to all means in order to protect our Palestinian civilians in the absence of a world effort to stop the Israeli aggression."

Maybe next they can bomb a senior home and gloat about it.

[RockEnds]

This article poses questions other than the standard, loaded "Does Israel have the right to exist?" type.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...831534612.html

International law, the Gaza war, and Palestine's state of exception

The large-scale military assault launched by Israel on Gaza, and the manner in which both Israeli and Palestinian forces are fighting this war, raise numerous red flags regarding large scale violations of human rights and international humanitarian law (IHL). Such violations have long characterised the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; yet despite post-Cold War improvements in the enforceability of international criminal law, in the Israeli-Palestinian context those who perpetrate human rights violations and war crimes seem largely immune to legal accountability.

Certainly, international law offers no panacea for the death and destruction of war; nor does most media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict devote more than the scantiest attention to the human rights implications of such violence. International law does, however, provide the most important standard against which the conduct of opposing sides can be judged. Such judgments have political currency, if not during the heat of battle then later. As Gaza-based human rights campaigner Raji Sourani described it in the midst of the current violence, human rights is the "skin" to protect civilians from the all-out aggression of those who attack them.

International law impacts the present war in Gaza in two key ways. One pertains to whether the violence deployed by each side complies with or violates IHL, in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocol I of 1977. The other, more complicated issue pertains to the legal status of Gaza and its relationship to Israel, which profoundly affects what kind of violence Israel can deploy there.

Since the 1967 conquest of Gaza and the West Bank, Israel has asserted that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to these areas or govern Israel's conduct toward Palestinian inhabitants on several grounds, including that Palestinians are not a High Contracting Party (state signatory). However, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the official guardian and authoritative interpreter of IHL, has consistently maintained that the Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs militarily captured territories and their civilian population, is applicable. This view is endorsed by a vast preponderance of international legal opinion, including United Nations resolutions and the opinion of the International Court of Justice.

(cont....)

I haven't had time to read the whole article. I may face my own internal hostilities if I don't get myself to the kitchen sooner rather than later. However, if nothing else, it does pose questions worth asking.

[JK/SEA]

Sure glad Israel is taking the high road on this, thanks to U.S. taxpayers, and the support of America Last groups like Christian orgs.

''its all bullshit, and none of its good for you''

--George Carlin

[Dr.3D]

Where does this come from?
Not picking on you Dr.3D,, but I have heard this often.

Except for the wars of Empires,, and changing empires, that area is more peaceful than not.
People of various religious faiths have lived together and peacefully coexisted. For the most part.

Even as far back as the "Crusades",, which was just empire expansion under the guise of religion.

I think this article explains the situation far better than I can.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...arallel/1.html

[tsetsefly]

Ahahahahhahahahhaah, WHAT?!?!?

Israel is an apartheid state. As I type this Israel is oppressing people for their culture and religion. What because they let gays dance around and parade they're more tolerable? They have children in their prisons!

Atrocious hypocrisy. Honestly, look at the history of Palestine... Jews have it, they hate on Muslims and Christians, Christians had it, they killed Jews and Muslims, Muslims had it, they protected the rights of both religions, and we're called Islamofascists?? lmao.

SO basically:

Jews have always been bad. Muslims always good, yup that sums up things pretty good especially with how tolerant modern day islamic nations are!

[Tpoints]

No one is disputing that.

I asked what do you think the solution is?
and if you think Israel has the right to exist?

that's the best trick question, "right to exist" no country has a right to exist, there is no law, international or otherwise that declares or guarantees a country (or self proclaimed country) their "right to exist".

[Tpoints]

Where does this come from?
Not picking on you Dr.3D,, but I have heard this often.

Except for the wars of Empires,, and changing empires, that area is more peaceful than not.
People of various religious faiths have lived together and peacefully coexisted. For the most part.

Even as far back as the "Crusades",, which was just empire expansion under the guise of religion.

that's basically what he meant. for a duration of thousands of years, people have had conflicts there, maybe not continuously, just repeatedly in the same area.

[ClydeCoulter]

that's basically what he meant. for a duration of thousands of years, people have had conflicts there, maybe not continuously, just repeatedly in the same area.

Mostly from outside agression?

The argument I hear all the time is "infighting for thousands of years".