US Citizen Killed on Flotilla

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Jewbacca something you need to know about Orion is he has been on this ridiculous rant for years. Whenever there is a bad actor who has a run in with someone who isn’t going to bullshit around and play games he goes off on these moralistic rants.

What you will find with Orion is his indignation is highly conditional. For example it does not bother him that Hamas has been indiscriminately hurling missiles into Israel for years. Nor does it bother Orion that Hamas has engaged in pogroms against Palestinian Christians in Gaza. The Israelis have good reason to be concerned about what is being given to Hamas.

This is what Hamas did with a group of Fatah members after Hamas seized control of Gaza.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6041204945834291260&hl=en#

Hamas are ruthless killers. Yet there are idiots like Orion who will insist the Israelis should play games with them. It was known beforehand that those ships intended to run the Israeli blockade of Gaza. So the Israelis did what they had to do to protect their best interests. [/quote]

What does or does not bother me hardly matters when it comes to what is an act of war or not.

It is also not really relevant to the matter that some people seem to change their definitions of what their enemy is whenever it suits them.

Plus, I thought I hated America, do I hate Israel now too?

[/quote]

Hamas is an armed militant organization that is for all intents and purposes a military junta that has seized control of Gaza and executed all of it’s opposition. They are responsible for numerous attacks from Gaza into Israel. Hamas receives so much military assistance from Iran that they are considered a proxy army of the Iranians.

For us to accept your position as valid we would have to turn a blind eye to everything that Hamas has done, threatens to do and represents. I refuse to accept your position of blind ignorance.

Hamas is engaged in armed conflict with the Israelis and they are re-arming so they can participate in an even broader armed conflict against the Israelis on their own behalf and on behalf of the Iranians. The Israelis have a legitimate reason to oversee what supplies go into Gaza to make sure Hamas isn’t getting more weapons.

That is why it is perfectly understandable why the Israelis would stop a flotilla of multiple blockade runners while they were far enough out to sea that they could not make a 3 mile sprint into Gaza defeating their blockade. What you are insisting the Israelis should have done is impotently sit and wait until the blockade runners were so close that they could not intercept them.

42

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m just getting very impatient with people whose ideological unrealities are actually prolonging this conflict, therefore, the killing. [/quote]

Like the Israeli settlers building illegal settlements in Palestinian territories?[/quote]

No, like folks such as yourself who’ve helped prolong the Hamas/etc. farce long enough so Israel, like any reasonable entity, doubts “Palestine” will ever exist as a peaceful neighbor.

43

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
[
Plus, I thought I hated America, do I hate Israel now too?

[/quote]

How could you not? It’s literally in your blood. [/quote]

Maybe, but there is Jewish blood too, there , at least allegedly, so there.

[/quote]

Ah so you are an Austrian who is self loathing because he is part Jewish, like Hitler. Ahmedinejad is descended from Jews as well.

Of all the nasty aspects of racism, probably the most pernicious and dangerous of all is self loathing.

44

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Oh, and here is Craig Murray, who is a former British Ambassador and also a former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office:

There are therefore two clear legal possibilities.

Possibility one is that the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships. In that case Israel is in a position of war with Turkey, and the act falls under international jurisdiction as a war crime.

Possibility two is that, if the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction. If Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.

In brief, if Israel and Turkey are not at war, then it is Turkish law which is applicable to what happened on the ship. It is for Turkey, not Israel, to carry out any inquiry or investigation into events and to initiate any prosecutions. Israel is obliged to hand over indicted personnel for prosecution.

So if someone who is an expert in maritime law actually agrees with my position, I guess my embarassement is bearable.

[/quote]

Sure, if you can live with–like him–switching off your brain in order to take an anti-Israeli posistion. Armed conflict, blockade legitimate, an announced blockade runner was stopped, they resisted visit and search.[/quote]

tsk, tsk , tsk, this is not a matter of common sense, but a legal issue.

Had they waited until they had reached Israelian territory they could have searched the ship.

However, they did not wait and did it in international waters wich some poster, who is awfully quiet now, thought justified because of “acts of war”.

This is obvious nonsense because the only entity actually able to commit an act of war in all of this is Israel and they promptly did.

I find it funny that that gets you all flustered, including allusions to my alleged deep seated hatred of Israel, and, dare I say it, Jews, but even though I do recognize that Americans are not well versed in legal thinking because their governments do no longer bother to stay within the realm of laws anyqay there are still some areas in this world were words have meanings, especially in a legal context and when it comes to justifications for killing people.

[/quote]

Actually, as I quoted, naval actions CAN take place on the high seas (international waters).

And they were attempting to breach a blockade. In fact, it was their announced purpose. And Israel has been in armed conflict with with the PA/Hamas.
"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;"

I got a joke for you. How do you kill jews, seek to destroy a nation, recieve and use military equipment (launchers, etc.), explicitly state geo-political goals, and still not participate in armed conflict and acts of war? Well, for a Rockwellian, apparently you just don’t sew on a patch. It’s a lot like a bugs bunny cartoon; patch on-armed conflit, patch off-no armed conflict, patch on-armed conflict, and continue on with the gag until eternity. Of course, anyone with a brain also understands palestinian political leadership has aided and abetted both badged and patchless combatants (or is it non-combatants, in a non-conflict, if they aren’t wearing a patch?).

Allusions to your deep seated hatred of jews? No, no, let me state it explicitly. You, like any of your type, are most certainly anti-jewish. Your comfortable little Austrian butt, in your already settled and peaceful borders, with your armed conflicts behind you, expects a majority and characteristically Jewish state to tolerate what no western state would ever, ever, allow to continue. Best case scenario, you’re a clueless and spoiled European, parroting what you see on Antiwar and Lewrockwell.com. “Well, if they trade with Hamas, the PA, and the Muslim brotherhood, some cheap Chinese made t-shirts, they’ll remove the destruction of Israel from their charters. Hyuck. That’s the power of the Savior-come-to-Earth, the Free Market. Hyuck.”[/quote]

So sorry, armed conflict is not enough.

Armed conflict with whom?

Hamas is a political party, not an army.

Those people were not working for Hamas.

I can post the definition again if you want.

I hope you have noticed that I posted the USC definition, not the UNs or the soft, effeminate, practically Muslim European version.

45

[quote]orion wrote:
Oh, and here is Craig Murray, who is a former British Ambassador and also a former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office:

There are therefore two clear legal possibilities.

Possibility one is that the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships. In that case Israel is in a position of war with Turkey, and the act falls under international jurisdiction as a war crime.

Possibility two is that, if the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction. If Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.

In brief, if Israel and Turkey are not at war, then it is Turkish law which is applicable to what happened on the ship. It is for Turkey, not Israel, to carry out any inquiry or investigation into events and to initiate any prosecutions. Israel is obliged to hand over indicted personnel for prosecution.

So if someone who is an expert in maritime law actually agrees with my position, I guess my embarassement is bearable.

[/quote]

As a result of disciplinary action for trading UK Visa’s for sex Murray was charged with gross misconduct and relieved of his duties as ambassador to Uzbekistan. He is a Liberal Democrat who cannot be considered an unbiased source of information.

46

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Jewbacca something you need to know about Orion is he has been on this ridiculous rant for years. Whenever there is a bad actor who has a run in with someone who isn’t going to bullshit around and play games he goes off on these moralistic rants.

What you will find with Orion is his indignation is highly conditional. For example it does not bother him that Hamas has been indiscriminately hurling missiles into Israel for years. Nor does it bother Orion that Hamas has engaged in pogroms against Palestinian Christians in Gaza. The Israelis have good reason to be concerned about what is being given to Hamas.

This is what Hamas did with a group of Fatah members after Hamas seized control of Gaza.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6041204945834291260&hl=en#

Hamas are ruthless killers. Yet there are idiots like Orion who will insist the Israelis should play games with them. It was known beforehand that those ships intended to run the Israeli blockade of Gaza. So the Israelis did what they had to do to protect their best interests. [/quote]

Thank you very much. I assumed Orion was an idiot, but you never know.

A lot of people get their news from the BBC or the alphabet networks, so they lack the basic knowledge, and when informed of basic facts (e.g., “arab East Jerusalem” was a mixed Jewish/moslem/Christian neighborhood for over a 1000 years until Jordan came in and killed or expelled the Jews and Christians in 1948) they change sides or stop moral relavism.

The lawfare folks who quote the UN (which is an absurd joke) or gin-up a lather about perceived legal violations (we had a Turkish flag on our blockade runner!) and ignore things like lobbing missles at school children are transparent evil people, and I can’t be bothered.
[/quote]

Poppycock.

Did I quote the UN?

No, the NATO treaty, which is what I have quoted, refers to it.

Also, my definition of act of war stems from the USC, because we would not want to use a source that could be deemed to be biased.

Also, the missiles killing Israelis have nothing to do with an act of piracy, not only not because one does not excuse the other but most especially because the people on board of these ships were not the ones lobbing them.

So, do you have any other absurd strawmen to put up, I could build me the biggest bonfire ever.

47

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Jewbacca something you need to know about Orion is he has been on this ridiculous rant for years. Whenever there is a bad actor who has a run in with someone who isn’t going to bullshit around and play games he goes off on these moralistic rants.

What you will find with Orion is his indignation is highly conditional. For example it does not bother him that Hamas has been indiscriminately hurling missiles into Israel for years. Nor does it bother Orion that Hamas has engaged in pogroms against Palestinian Christians in Gaza. The Israelis have good reason to be concerned about what is being given to Hamas.

This is what Hamas did with a group of Fatah members after Hamas seized control of Gaza.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6041204945834291260&hl=en#

Hamas are ruthless killers. Yet there are idiots like Orion who will insist the Israelis should play games with them. It was known beforehand that those ships intended to run the Israeli blockade of Gaza. So the Israelis did what they had to do to protect their best interests. [/quote]

What does or does not bother me hardly matters when it comes to what is an act of war or not.

It is also not really relevant to the matter that some people seem to change their definitions of what their enemy is whenever it suits them.

Plus, I thought I hated America, do I hate Israel now too?

[/quote]

Hamas is an armed militant organization that is for all intents and purposes a military junta that has seized control of Gaza and executed all of it’s opposition. They are responsible for numerous attacks from Gaza into Israel. Hamas receives so much military assistance from Iran that they are considered a proxy army of the Iranians.

For us to accept your position as valid we would have to turn a blind eye to everything that Hamas has done, threatens to do and represents. I refuse to accept your position of blind ignorance.

Hamas is engaged in armed conflict with the Israelis and they are re-arming so they can participate in an even broader armed conflict against the Israelis on their own behalf and on behalf of the Iranians. The Israelis have a legitimate reason to oversee what supplies go into Gaza to make sure Hamas isn’t getting more weapons.

That is why it is perfectly understandable why the Israelis would stop a flotilla of multiple blockade runners while they were far enough out to sea that they could not make a 3 mile sprint into Gaza defeating their blockade. What you are insisting the Israelis should have done is impotently sit and wait until the blockade runners were so close that they could not intercept them. [/quote]

Armed conflict is not enough, it needs to be between two nations, which would require the recognition of a state of Palestine and the existence of a state of war between Palestine and Israel or, at the very least, and armed conflict with a “military forces of any origin”.

This is where it gets kind of circular because “military forces” are mostly defined as the forces of a nation state.

Luckily USC §2331 also states that:

(1) the term â??international terrorismâ?? means activities thatâ??
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intendedâ??
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

So, interestingly enough, I think it is safe to say that the armed wing of Hamas can best be described as “terrorists”, which not only means that a “war” with them is impossible, but also that they are not a “military” force in the sense of the USC §2331.

There was an act of war however, because the ship sailed under Turkish flag and suddenly all problems disappear, because now we have two nation states and one of them attacked a ship that traveled under the other nations flag, using one nations states military.

Viola, text book case of “act of war”.

Unless of course the military acted under their own authority, then it is just plain murder.

48

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
[
Plus, I thought I hated America, do I hate Israel now too?

[/quote]

How could you not? It’s literally in your blood. [/quote]

Maybe, but there is Jewish blood too, there , at least allegedly, so there.

[/quote]

Ah so you are an Austrian who is self loathing because he is part Jewish, like Hitler. Ahmedinejad is descended from Jews as well.

Of all the nasty aspects of racism, probably the most pernicious and dangerous of all is self loathing. [/quote]

Jews are of a different race?

When did that happen?

49

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Oh, and here is Craig Murray, who is a former British Ambassador and also a former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office:

There are therefore two clear legal possibilities.

Possibility one is that the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships. In that case Israel is in a position of war with Turkey, and the act falls under international jurisdiction as a war crime.

Possibility two is that, if the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction. If Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.

In brief, if Israel and Turkey are not at war, then it is Turkish law which is applicable to what happened on the ship. It is for Turkey, not Israel, to carry out any inquiry or investigation into events and to initiate any prosecutions. Israel is obliged to hand over indicted personnel for prosecution.

So if someone who is an expert in maritime law actually agrees with my position, I guess my embarassement is bearable.

[/quote]

As a result of disciplinary action for trading UK Visa’s for sex Murray was charged with gross misconduct and relieved of his duties as ambassador to Uzbekistan. He is a Liberal Democrat who cannot be considered an unbiased source of information. [/quote]

But he can considered to be an expert on maritime law.

I hear the British are quite good at that, having some naval tradition, and he was their chief.

50

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Oh, and here is Craig Murray, who is a former British Ambassador and also a former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office:

There are therefore two clear legal possibilities.

Possibility one is that the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships. In that case Israel is in a position of war with Turkey, and the act falls under international jurisdiction as a war crime.

Possibility two is that, if the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction. If Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.

In brief, if Israel and Turkey are not at war, then it is Turkish law which is applicable to what happened on the ship. It is for Turkey, not Israel, to carry out any inquiry or investigation into events and to initiate any prosecutions. Israel is obliged to hand over indicted personnel for prosecution.

So if someone who is an expert in maritime law actually agrees with my position, I guess my embarassement is bearable.

[/quote]

Sure, if you can live with–like him–switching off your brain in order to take an anti-Israeli posistion. Armed conflict, blockade legitimate, an announced blockade runner was stopped, they resisted visit and search.[/quote]

tsk, tsk , tsk, this is not a matter of common sense, but a legal issue.

Had they waited until they had reached Israelian territory they could have searched the ship.

However, they did not wait and did it in international waters wich some poster, who is awfully quiet now, thought justified because of “acts of war”.

This is obvious nonsense because the only entity actually able to commit an act of war in all of this is Israel and they promptly did.

I find it funny that that gets you all flustered, including allusions to my alleged deep seated hatred of Israel, and, dare I say it, Jews, but even though I do recognize that Americans are not well versed in legal thinking because their governments do no longer bother to stay within the realm of laws anyqay there are still some areas in this world were words have meanings, especially in a legal context and when it comes to justifications for killing people.

[/quote]

That is the game the Royal Navy played that game with Jewish refugees after the war. They would get their ships up to flank speed and aim for shore. Knowing that once they crossed the three mile limit they only needed a couple of minutes before they beached and everyone bailed off the ship. Against a flotilla of ships it would have been an impossible task to stop them from getting through.

As I have said you expect the Israelis to play a game. A deadly game which they cannot win.
Whether or not you hate certain groups of people doesn’t matter. What does matter is you are a kook who is sitting in a safe place, spouting a bunch of bullshit about how people who are living in a dangerous place should play games with people who are trying to kill them.

The bottom line is it’s easy for you to talk shit because you won’t have to live with or more importantly die from the consequences of what you are advocating. You are just another internet shit talker who has his head up his ass.

51

[quote]orion wrote:

Armed conflict with whom?

Hamas is a political party, not an army.

[/quote]

Somebody really should make an animated cartoon skit. You could have Palestinian leadership asking for donations from muslim states for “charity”, and discussing among themselves how their ‘special charities’ need more money, in an obvious wink/wink tone. Cut to a scene, set two weeks later, of new and improved launchers firing rockets off into Israeli towns. When the Israelis show up, they come under fire. When they go to return fire, they see no military patches.

So, dejected, they retreat under fire. Then some low ranking soldier looking back notices that the now laughing ‘non-combatants’ have applied velcroed patches to their arms, and have returned to firing off rockets. The Israelis advance again, but just before coming into range the combatants strip off their patches, becoming non-combatants who are whistling in a comedic ‘who me? I’m not doing anything!’ manner. The Israelis retreat again. This repeats a few times until the scene fades to the old Warner Bros theme and end screen. Tha-Tha-Tha-That’s all folks!

52

Hamas ‘politician?’

53

Hamas politician stumping for enough votes to pass healthcare legislation?

54

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Oh, and here is Craig Murray, who is a former British Ambassador and also a former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office:

There are therefore two clear legal possibilities.

Possibility one is that the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships. In that case Israel is in a position of war with Turkey, and the act falls under international jurisdiction as a war crime.

Possibility two is that, if the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction. If Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.

In brief, if Israel and Turkey are not at war, then it is Turkish law which is applicable to what happened on the ship. It is for Turkey, not Israel, to carry out any inquiry or investigation into events and to initiate any prosecutions. Israel is obliged to hand over indicted personnel for prosecution.

So if someone who is an expert in maritime law actually agrees with my position, I guess my embarassement is bearable.

[/quote]

Sure, if you can live with–like him–switching off your brain in order to take an anti-Israeli posistion. Armed conflict, blockade legitimate, an announced blockade runner was stopped, they resisted visit and search.[/quote]

tsk, tsk , tsk, this is not a matter of common sense, but a legal issue.

Had they waited until they had reached Israelian territory they could have searched the ship.

However, they did not wait and did it in international waters wich some poster, who is awfully quiet now, thought justified because of “acts of war”.

This is obvious nonsense because the only entity actually able to commit an act of war in all of this is Israel and they promptly did.

I find it funny that that gets you all flustered, including allusions to my alleged deep seated hatred of Israel, and, dare I say it, Jews, but even though I do recognize that Americans are not well versed in legal thinking because their governments do no longer bother to stay within the realm of laws anyqay there are still some areas in this world were words have meanings, especially in a legal context and when it comes to justifications for killing people.

[/quote]

That is the game the Royal Navy played that game with Jewish refugees after the war. They would get their ships up to flank speed and aim for shore. Knowing that once they crossed the three mile limit they only needed a couple of minutes before they beached and everyone bailed off the ship. Against a flotilla of ships it would have been an impossible task to stop them from getting through.

As I have said you expect the Israelis to play a game. A deadly game which they cannot win.
Whether or not you hate certain groups of people doesn’t matter. What does matter is you are a kook who is sitting in a safe place, spouting a bunch of bullshit about how people who are living in a dangerous place should play games with people who are trying to kill them.

The bottom line is it’s easy for you to talk shit because you won’t have to live with or more importantly die from the consequences of what you are advocating. You are just another internet shit talker who has his head up his ass. [/quote]

So they would have headed to a harbor under Israeli control, maybe even reached it.

And then what?

55

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Hamas politician stumping for enough votes to pass healthcare legislation? [/quote]

He has the most convincing arguments I have seen so far.

Also he is just plain honest how he intends to deal with those dont comply.

As far as politicians go, whats not to like?

56

And as someone posted earlier, Hamas politicians debating the latest spending bill with their political opposition…I guess.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6041204945834291260&hl=en#

57

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m just getting very impatient with people whose ideological unrealities are actually prolonging this conflict, therefore, the killing. [/quote]

Like the Israeli settlers building illegal settlements in Palestinian territories?[/quote]

No, like folks such as yourself who’ve helped prolong the Hamas/etc. farce long enough so Israel, like any reasonable entity, doubts “Palestine” will ever exist as a peaceful neighbor. [/quote]

Woah woah woah. Where did I say I supported the ickle Palestinians? I have no illusions about the nature of their leadership; but you’re turning a blind eye to Isreali transgressions of international law as well.

58

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Jewbacca something you need to know about Orion is he has been on this ridiculous rant for years. Whenever there is a bad actor who has a run in with someone who isn’t going to bullshit around and play games he goes off on these moralistic rants.

What you will find with Orion is his indignation is highly conditional. For example it does not bother him that Hamas has been indiscriminately hurling missiles into Israel for years. Nor does it bother Orion that Hamas has engaged in pogroms against Palestinian Christians in Gaza. The Israelis have good reason to be concerned about what is being given to Hamas.

This is what Hamas did with a group of Fatah members after Hamas seized control of Gaza.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6041204945834291260&hl=en#

Hamas are ruthless killers. Yet there are idiots like Orion who will insist the Israelis should play games with them. It was known beforehand that those ships intended to run the Israeli blockade of Gaza. So the Israelis did what they had to do to protect their best interests. [/quote]

Thank you very much. I assumed Orion was an idiot, but you never know.

A lot of people get their news from the BBC or the alphabet networks, so they lack the basic knowledge, and when informed of basic facts (e.g., “arab East Jerusalem” was a mixed Jewish/moslem/Christian neighborhood for over a 1000 years until Jordan came in and killed or expelled the Jews and Christians in 1948) they change sides or stop moral relavism.

The lawfare folks who quote the UN (which is an absurd joke) or gin-up a lather about perceived legal violations (we had a Turkish flag on our blockade runner!) and ignore things like lobbing missles at school children are transparent evil people, and I can’t be bothered.
[/quote]

In Britain they call the BBC, Al Beeb because of it’s extreme pro muslim bias. Al Beeb is a highly politicized leftist organization that in no way can be considered to be unbiased. Al Beeb is run by Fabians and Fabian sympathizers and is a propaganda organization for them. The British people can’t even trust Al Beeb to advocate for their best interests.

Just so you know who they are. The infamous eugenicist George Bernard Shaw who originated the idea of death camps was a charter member of Fabian society.

George Bernard Shaw Defends Hitler, Mass Murder - YouTube

59

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m just getting very impatient with people whose ideological unrealities are actually prolonging this conflict, therefore, the killing. [/quote]

Like the Israeli settlers building illegal settlements in Palestinian territories?[/quote]

What territories are those? The only place they are building settlements is the West Bank aka Judea. In 1948 when the UN recognized the state of Israel the West Bank was part of their territory and accepted as such by the UN. The next day when Israel was invaded by several Arab countries the West Bank and East Jerusalem were invaded and annexed by Jordan.

If the Jews want to build settlements in Judea, it is their land.