Freedom Flotilla hijacked

Remove all ads!

Sarcasm aside, they have intercepted muntions shipments before.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16637-2002Jan8?language=printer

If you stick your hand in the lion's mouth, and get bitten, can you really scream outrage when you knew that it was a possibility?

 

KJ,
that was in 2002. And it wasn't an aid ship sailing under great publicity either. Just saying.

ROTFL! What was Biden talking about then? Did it ever, ever, occur to you that there are settlements that Israel not only not evacuated but expanded? That settlements exist in Palestinian territory except Gaza? What about East Jerusalem and the West Bank? Palestinians problems are not limited to Gaza. And that Palestinians in Gaza are just as angry about the settlements and settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as the Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, because, you know, they're all Palestinians? Hamas or Abbas, the anger about Israeli land grabs is probably a thing you'd get them to all agree about. Sharon's Gaza withdrawal was a fig leaf.

It is amazing enough that, considering that all of Israel's settlements on Palestinian territory are illegal, Israel is being lauded for slowing their further expansion. It's like me moving heavily armed into your house, starting to take it over room by room - to then say that, as a gesture of goodwill, that I'll delay taking over the kitchen for half a year - and you are then supposed to be grateful, and people are then supposed to pat me on the back and reward me for how generous I am. Indeed, I think I'd fully deserve it.

The consensus view of the international community is that the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this. I am sure your eminent law professor has some glib remarks to offer as to why the international consensus on this badly misses the mark.

As if that wasn't funny enough, here's the kicker: And you take the word of a former Israeli government lawyer, Dr. Robbie Sabel, who nowadays spends his days doing pro-Israel advocacy at face value? You're a marketer's dream, NOG. The guy works for the IDC in Herzliya, which screams out 'government connections' so loud it's deafening. The guy is doing hasbara i.e advocating a pro- Israel position (less generous souls might call it propaganda), plain and simple.

But I find it highly entertaining to see that you 'trust' the eminent law professor. This ought to not be about trust, but independent and critical thinking. You apply that only to the extent necessary to dismiss dissonant information. Why not go all the way and discover a whole new universe of nuance?

 

Ah, but the Israelis didn't shoot anyone down in cold blood. If the Americans had resisted arrest, pulled knives, and been shot, then we'd have an accurate approximation. There may be a bit of a firestorm as to whether they were provoked into pulling the knives or not (i.e. being shot at), but once video came out proving otherwise, America would just say, 'Well, more of our stupid teens go themselves killed.'

Ah, sorry, I thought you were still talking about just Gaza.

Yes, actually, they do:

The reason that the UN considers them illegal, btw, is this:

Except, of course, that all residents have been offered Israeli citizenship. They refused it. They're seperating themselves by nationality because they want a national identity, which the international community hasn't given them.

Ragusa, you wanted to trust Al-Jazeera!!!!! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

 

NOG, this is just for you: I was not 'trusting Al Jazeera', I was linking to a news report by them, saying not that Al Jazeera is right, but that Al Jazeera's reporting so strongly contrasts with official Israeli announcements, that it suggests that we are well advised to take Israel's official statements with a bag of salt. As in: Gee, perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle?

You know, with Israel having military censorship and all that there is the odd chance that the Israeli press has been, well, censored, and that official announcements contain an advocacy position instead of the plain truth? You noticed the Israeli videos were edited? Aren't you always complaining that the liberal media only shows that one side of the story? Israel is doing just that - showing their side of the story, and only that. It's just that in this case there indeed is a little more to it than just that.

And to address that other point you made - it doesn't matter in the slightest that Israel offered the Palestinians Israeli citizenship:

If Mexico went and conquered and occupied Arizona, and offered all the people there Mexican citizenship, would that de-legitimise all Arizona resistance? No, it would not, since war for territorial expansion, ever since Japan and Germany gave it a bad name in WW-II, is considered unacceptable under international law. That is why it is prohibited under international law to annex conquered territory. The right of self determination of all peoples includes a right to resistance to occupation. If you don't like that, well, too bad; you don't need to like it.

That's why Israel can make withdrawals from territory that they don't own anyway all day - it doesn't change that a bit. These withdrawals are ploys. And their offer of citizenship, are you serious? Under that proposal Israel would enact a basic law to ensure that it remains a Jewish state whatever its demographics i.e. to take that offer Palestinians would be forced to accept Israel as a Jewish state.

So what's the problem accepting a Jewish state? Hint: Why doesn't America have a state religion? Israel as a Jewish state means Israel is not a state for all three Abrahamic religions, but exclusively a Jewish state, that perhaps tolerates the other religions, but doesn't grant them equal status. Do you see the poison pill in that 'generous offer'?

It was thus totally predictable that this offer would be refused. And the predictable refusal only provided one more Israeli talking point about how unreasonable those crazy Palestinians are - to refuse an offer that would force them to accept the Jewish character of a state where they would contribute some 50+% of the population. Totally irrational? Hardly. And because it was predictable, it is fair to assume that the refusal was a desired result. And look, it works on you!

The two class citizenry aspect is a very current phenomenon with Liebermann and his party pursuing Jewish identity politics in Israel - as indicated by Liebermann and his party pushing legislation requiring Israeli Arabs (who are already citizens) to swear a loyalty oath to Israel as a Jewish state - or forfeit their citizenship. This is ethnic nationalism, nothing else. It has nothing to do with security.

But this leading us astray, let's focus on the flotilla.

 

@Soshino

From the Annotated Supplement to the commander's handbook on the law of naval operations

So this is a book of the American interpretation of international law. It’s not an international treaty and as its authors write it’s not a substitute for the definitive legal guidance.

This is the full paragraph of this handbook about blockade breaching. You know sometimes it’s really useful to read the footnotes. Footnote 138 refers to the sentence that you have directed me but unfortunately I don’t have this book (I will search for it later). However, footnote 140, which refers to “It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of interception bound for neutral territory, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area”, says that “The practice of nations has rendered obsolete the contrary provisions of the Declaration of London, arts. 17 & 19”. Which were the provisions of the declaration of London about the issues of blockade breaching?

The declaration of London was signed in 1909 and it was ratified by the US but it was not ratified by many other countries and therefore it never went into effect officially. So the only reasoning behind “Attempted breach of blockade occurs … voyage is completed” and ““It is immaterial that the … blockaded area”, is “the international treaty is obsolete so we can do whatever we like". Sorry to disappoint you but since there are other relevant treaties in effect, this is just another “Alberto Gonzalez” interpretation.

http://www.nuclearweaponslaw.com/Annotated_Supplement_to_the_Commanders_Handbook_All.pdf

@NOG

I'll answer to you later, too tired now.

 

BOC, I think you are interpreating the law inccorrectly

Is very clear, the breach has occured the instant the ship has left port with intent.

I also think that your 1909 law may be out of date. however:

Isralie warships have been enforcing thie blockade in international water since its inception. this constitutes the area of operation in which the warships render the blockade effective.

officially through what channel?
law is enforced through force, the countries with the force to enforce a law are the ones in control, I dont agree with laws of the UK, doesnt mean I can do anything about it. and moaning and *****ing wont do anything.

why did you quote this? it is severly damaging to your argument.

are there? I havent seen a treaty agreed by the blackading party which allows free breach of the blockaded area


this is almost like comlpaining that the Germans sunk the Lusitania in WW1, they issued a warning to all shipping passing through the seas surrounding the UK that they may come under attack, it was even printed on the tickets for the voyage, but the ship went anyway, and was subsequently sunk by a german torpedo- they took the risks knowing the possible outcome.

If you push someone and they say to you "do that again and I'm going to nut you" and you push them again resulting in the headbutt, who is really to blame?

 

Shoshino,
BOC is right. You ought to appreciate his efforts to school you in international law. It is time consuming since the matter is complicated and nuanced. He doesn't need to do that. Nothing of what he wrote is controversial. If it appears to you, then because you have no idea what you're talking about. He does. Listen up. Listen. Learn.

 

I have a big problem with the arguments to the effect of "they knew what they were getting into, it's their fault". C'mon! Let's say you want to enter your best friend's house. A goon is standing in front of the door and says "go away, you can't come here". You try to enter the house but he pushes you away and says "try again and I will hit you". You say "You don't have a right to keep me out of my friend's house" and try again. The goon hits you square in the face. Of course, the best course of action would have been to call the police before trying again. But just because the guys warned he would hit you doesn't make it alright he did nor does it make it your fault violence erupted. He could have chosen not to hit you.

And Shoshino, your take on the world is the strong takes what it wants from the weak. While not entirely inacurate, you only see in terms of muscle. Intelligence and wisdom are also very strong method to achieve our aim. What? Your saying peaceful protests never achieve anything? Gandhi never existed? Protestors never made the government change laws? Here in Canada, a group of aboriginal women were tired of the mesygonist laws and in the '90s, they made important legal changes to the social status of aboriginal women. They didn't take the parliement hostage or attack ministers for this to happen...

 

My last post was put in totally out of order to what it was answering. Uggh.

I am pretty sure that other countries have enforced their blockades in international waters. I could be wrong. If I am wrong, and the Israelis were acting differently than any other country enforcing their blockade, then yeah, they should face some censure.

My confusion lies in what the blockade entails -- as Ragusa mentioned, it seems the Gaza folks are being starved out -- thjis confuses me, as I thought that ships were stopped, searched, and then permitted to take their aid cargo to the port in question. It appears that this is not the case - -is it that unfeasbile to do it like that, or do they simply stop all ships from taking ANYTHING in?

 

@Shoshino

I don’t know, perhaps it is the language barrier, perhaps my English suck, but you haven’t understand what I’m saying, so I’ll try once more.

This is not an international law, I doubt if it is even an American law. It is a passage from a handbook, which tries to interpret the international law and it is solely based upon the fact that the Declaration of London is obsolete. Who says that the declaration is not in effect? The same handbook that includes the above passage, read the footnote.

I quoted these two articles because the footnote says (once more): “The practice of nations has rendered obsolete the contrary provisions of the Declaration of London, arts. 17 & 19”. To what are they contrary? They are contrary to the passage, upon which you base your argument. Even if these articles are obsolete, I don’t see how they damage my case.

The San Remo Manual and the Convention of High Seas describe clearly the framework of the blockade and the conditions for boarding a ship under a foreign flag in international waters. Show me where do they say “a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade”.

@NOG

This applies when they are a) in your territorial waters b) in your enemy’s territorial waters c) breaching a blockade area. It doesn’t apply when they are in international waters which are not part of the blockade zone.

I’ve checked your links. As far as the extension of the blockade zone in one of your links the following sentence in included: “the IDF informed the Freedom Flotilla yesterday that the no-go zone had been extended from 20 to 48, 60, or 68 miles, depending on the report”. Two questions:

a)Did IDF inform only the flotilla or did they inform and the governments as well? Paragraph 101 of San Remo says:

The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94.

Paragraphs 93 and 94 say:

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

So if IDF informed only the flotilla and not the Turkish and the other governments, the extension is illegal.

b)Don’t you think that it strange the fact that Israel has not make a public announcement in order to state the coordinates of the supposed extension? The only announcement with the coordinates of the embargo zone is made by Israeli ministry of transport and road safety back in January 6 2009.

Also in one of your links there is the following passage:

The interesting thing is that the blockade area is identical with Gaza’s maritime space. I found also this map which shows the blockade area and the position, where the flotilla was boarded, which is clearly outside of the blockade area.

I hate long posts.

 

BOC,
good post.

Yes, from what it looks like, if they stop a vessel (they sometimes did, sometimes didn't), they block everything from entry that doesn't meet their arbitrary criteria.

IMO the probable Israeli (un)reasoning is this: Everything that improves conditions in Gaza strengthens Hamas, thus coriander can be viewed ... as a threat to Israel's security, and be blocked from Gaza

 

BOC, the blockade had been in force for years. Israel had notified the entire world the blockade existed. It really didn't matter where the flotilla was when it was searched because they had made the final destination of their cargo clear -- it is the destination that is crucial in a blockade. Typically the extent of the blockade (the area it covers) is simply the limit of the enforcing power's ability to establish borders. For Israel, this area is rather limiting -- for the US or British fleet a blockade can encompass an extremely large area (even global).

As I said, the location of the flotilla did not matter at all. IMO, the blockade and the search of the flotilla was well within international requirements for such actions. The legality of the search is not an issue at all -- the real issues are the adequacy of the warnings to stop for the search and the force used. Everything else is pretty much ... well ... kosher.

As far as what can be declared contraband -- anything that is not required for people to survive can be contraband. They could make toilet paper contraband. The goal is to first deny the enemy needed supplies of war, and second make life uncomfortable for those who harbor the enemy. Sometimes that second part is not liked by the international community and the nations must exert their influence for the contraband list to be reduced. Unfortunately, Israel is not likely to listen to anyone.

 

Τ2

Yes, Israel has notified the world about the blockade, I have not claimed something different. What I'm saying is that the San Remo states clearly that Israel has to make a new notification if it desires to extend the blockade zone. If they haven't sent a new notification the extension is illegal.

As far as the position of the flotilla, the whole argument that Israel can intercept the flotilla outside of the blockade zone is based on that paragraph from the Handbook, which is not international law. So, the rules of blockade are in effect only in the blockade zone. Outside of it, the convention of high seas are in effect.

 

to be perfectly blunt, I dont think you are an afficianato in law, your post is nothing but arrogant. I posted a passage from "International Humanitarian Law - Treaties & Documents", and a passage from "The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations.
You on the other hand have posted no legal documents which prove your agrument. Its your usual "Israel is evil and must be lieing with every word they say" propaganda.

The British empire when It exercised its might covered 1/3 of the globe, the romans, the egyptians and the chinese all had very influential and powerful empires, when they started to weaken they crumbled and that is why the world is in such a poor state now, there are no strong leaders everyone wories about their political ambitions instead of doing anything, look at zimbabwe, we do nothing save spout our usual "concerns"... shame they dont have oil.
Germany, not a large country, waged war on the world, and did a bloody good job too, if it werent for the ineptitude of some of its leaders I wonder where the world would be now, the Soviet union was incredibly powerful, shame stalin executed his best generals and scientists out of sheer paranoia. The USA exists today, built in nothing but war and muscle, the strong won, everyone else was s**t on. The UK, England, Scotland and Wales.... not throught choice, the nation was built on one strong side defeating the others.
How many countries exist today in a 'democracy' because the stronger side defeated the weaker side?

not true, if youve touched him in your efforts to get in the house you can be charged with an affray.

the Isralies deliver lots of supplies to the strip, and if foreign aid arrives they will stop the vehicles but offer to deliver the aid, as they did only last year with a convoy which set out from Swansea, which travelled through egypt and was stopped as it travelled to gaza.

Food Products and Clothing:

1. Most types of food are allowed into the Strip, and are transferred by the private sector or by international organizations.
2. During 2009, 30,920 trucks containing 800,000 tons of supplies were transferred into Gaza. This included fruits and vegetables, meat products, poultry and fish, dairy products, sugar, rice and legumes, flour and yeast, oil, and more. Furthermore, 10,871 heads of cattle were transferred for the Muslim holidays of Ramadan and Eid al-Adha.
3. In the first quarter of 2010 (January-March), 94,500 tons of supplies were transferred in 3,676 trucks to the Strip: 48,000 tons of food products; 40,000 tons of wheat; 2,760 tons of rice; 1,987 tons of clothes and footwear; 553 tons of milk powder and baby food.
4. In 2009, 572 trucks containing approximately 5,000 tons of medical supplies entered the Strip.
5. In the first quarter of 2010 (January-March) 1,068 tons of medicine and medical equipment were transferred in 152 trucks.
6. In 2009 two elevators were transferred to hospitals in Gaza, as was a CT imaging system (to the Red Cross hospital), and equipment for a mammography machine (which checks for breast cancer).
7. During the first quarter of 2010 four trucks with special supplies for a project of the “Al Quds” hospital were transferred to the Gaza Strip, and an additional 13 trucks are scheduled to cross.
8. Due to fears of a swine flu outbreak, three Israeli hospitals were assigned to treat cases in the Gaza Strip and 44,500 immunizations were transferred to the Strip.

Equipment for Essential Civilian Infrastructure:

1. In 2009 Israel transferred 41 trucks of equipment for the maintenance of the electricity grid, and the state continues to provide approximately 60% of Gaza’s electricity.
2. In 2009 over 105 million liters of fuel were transferred to Gaza’s power plant and over 3.2 million liters of gas were transferred for UNWRA operations.
3. In 2009 127 trucks containing more than 3,000 tons of hypochlorite entered the Gaza Strip for water purification purposes. Moreover, 48 trucks of equipment for improving the sanitation infrastructure led to a substantial reduction in the Beit Lahya facility’s waste levels.
4. As part of the preparations made for winter, 3,607 tons of glass was transferred to the Gaza Strip. According to UN reports, windows in all education and health institutions were repaired.
5. In the first quarter of 2010 Israel transferred:
* 250 trucks with equipment for the UNWRA summer camp, including: arts and crafts equipment, swimming pools, inflatable toys, ice cream machines, musical instruments, clothing, sports equipment, etc.
* Seven trucks with equipment for upgrading the sewage pumping station, which was carried out by UNWRA.
* 74 empty containers for UNWRA for use in classrooms and bathrooms
6. Certain types of materials, such as cement and iron, are more restricted. These products are openly used by Hamas for developing its arsenal, building bunkers and launching sites, and making rockets and mortars.
7. Despite the risk, the transfer of these items is also permitted under supervision, once it has been cleared that these materials are for civilian purposes only. Already in the first quarter of 2010, 23 tons of iron and 25 tons of cement were transferred to the Gaza Strip.

Movement of Residents in and out of the Gaza Strip

1. Despite the inherent dangers involved, Israel permits Gazans and visitors to travel between Gaza and Israel, from Gaza to Judea and Samaria, and abroad for medical treatment, religious pilgrimages, and business trips. Whenever possible Israel allows for diplomatic activities as well as trade and commerce with the Gaza Strip.
2. Here are a number of examples from 2009:

* Delegations from abroad: 21,200 activists from international organizations from over 400 diplomatic delegations were permitted entry into Gaza, and 2,200 Palestinians employed by international organizations were given exit permits from the Gaza Strip.
* Education, Vacations and Pilgrimages to Holy sites: 147 permits were given to Palestinian students for academic studies around the world. During the Christmas holiday approximately 400 permits were given to visit Bethlehem from Gaza as well 100 permits to travel abroad.
* Business: 257 permits were given to businessmen from Gaza to facilitate business operations.
* Sports: Special permission was given to Gazan footballers to train in Judea and Samaria and compete in international matches abroad.

Trade and Commerce

Israel has taken measures to support trade and commerce, the banking system, and the existing financial market in the Gaza Strip:

* In 2009 1.1 billion NIS was transferred to the Gaza Strip for the ongoing activity of international organizations and to pay the salaries of Palestinian Authority workers.
* 40 million damaged bank notes were traded for new bills, and at the request of the Palestinian Monetary Fund, 282.5 million shekels were transferred from Gazan to Israeli Banks.
* In February 2010 an agreement was reached with the Palestinian Authority’s National Insurance Department to ensure that pensions reached those formerly employed in Israel. The funds were deposited in banks in Judea and Samaria, while the Palestinian Authority was given the responsibility of distributing the funds to the pensioners in Gaza.

I know this is an Isralie source so youll simply bump it off as 'lies', but:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/HumanitarianAid/Palestinians/MFA_Spokesman_Gaza_flotilla_24-May-2010.htm

Also, the IFF, an outspoke supporter of Hamas and its violence against israel funded much of this flotilla

 

Reminds me of the time when blacks had to sit at the back of the bus. Until one black woman decided she had the right to sit at the front like everyone else...

 

Shoshino,
I don't care what you think I am. But I do see BOC making a good legal argument, by the book. He isn't just copy pasting stuff he goggled up. Yes, I infer something there.

And I don't think Israel is evil whatever it does. I believe, firmly, that their policies on the Palestinians are wrong headed, and ultimately will be Israel's undoing. I don't want to see that happen. It is one thing to have a right to self defence, that nobody denies Israel has, and another to use that as an excuse for policies of territorial expansion and a strategy of strangulation vis a vis Gaza. Security concerns are nice and well, but they don't account for banning coriander.

I pointed you to paragraph 102 of the San Remo Manual already. That is, if I may be so bold, a legal argument. Here it is again:

If the conditions for (a) or (b) are met, the blockade is illegal. Thus the question about the blockade's purpose and effects is relevant legally. You didn't comment on that. Want to say something?

The legitimacy of the blockade is the elephant in the room you prefer to rather not address. Can you make an argument how the banning of coriander, canned fruit and the like provides Israel with a military advantage?

Let me guess: ... The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must! Your argument that, legal, schmegal, the strong get away with whatever they do ignores that they, too, pay a price. Israel is fast losing friends and goodwill internationally. Israel is in a situation where they can ill afford that. To mindlessly cheer them on is helping them over the cliff.

 

Aww, c'mon guys, can't we all be friends?

GROUP HUG!

 

You linked to them while trying to claim the Israelis shot first. Specifically, you said:

The underlined being your link to Al Jazeera. That sounded to me like you were taking their word for it.

Indeed, the whole Israel-Palestine problem is way too complex, considering it pre-dates the UN, all parties have broken 'international law' and ignored UN resolutions, and there's some stuff that doesn't even appear to be covered in law.

The problem with BOC's post is that the Declaration of London was not ratified by either Israel or the international community at large, so it doesn't seem to apply here. Thus, the

bit appears to be the relevant law.

Of course, it doesn't help any that 'international law' in this area is based on 'generally accepted customs' which, at the time the treaties were developed, basically meant European customs, and that both the cultures involved and the tactics involved by at least one side don't in any way match them.

A better analogy would be the police executing a search warrant obtained through lies to the judge (and thus illegal). If you mess with the police, you're still breaking the law, and may well get shot if you do it with a knife. The correct reaction is to contact your lawyer and file a complaint.

You're not wrong. Blockades enforced in territorial waters are usually what are called 'brown-water blockades' (often conduced in rivers and bays) and are rarely effective at keeping anything out.

The situation is confusing. Israel appears to be allowing aid into Gaza, but only the aid they've said they'd allow. I'm guessing they didn't allow the wheel-chair batteries in because 'batteries' are on the no-go list. I'm assuming that not just because they didn't deliver the batteries, but also because I'd expect batteries to be on the no-go list, especially considering generators are also on the list. Much of the rest of the aid appears to be, as well. They aren't, however, 'starving them out', as many foodstuffs (and enough variety to support life) are allowed in.

This passage has never been challenged, and there is nothing in relevant international law (most relevant appears to be the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea) that contradicts it.

Actually, it seems that everyone, including international law, say that the Declaration of London isn't in effect, considering that it was never adopted by the UN, Turkey, or Israel.

Show us where they say otherwise, though the Convention on the High Seas appears to be a peace-time document, not concerned with events of war, and thus not applicable.

I don't know, and that's a legitimate question.

The declaration would be made to a particular international maritime body, but I don't remember the name at the moment. As to why it hasn't been posted yet, I'm not surprised, considering it apparently took them several months to post the original declaration from Israel. The lack of such a posting doesn't mean the declaration was made, of course, but nor does it mean it wasn't.

I'll take a shot. Look to the next paragraph:

Aid is delivered to Hamas, the 'protecting power', and the Red Cross and Red Crescent have access.

 

I can't believe all the bandwidth being wasted on the legalities of the stoppage of the ship. Face facts. Israel has declared a blockade of Gaza. Any ship that has made its intentions clear that it will attempt to break the blockade will be intercepted by the Israeli military. The Israelis don't care about the legal nicities (nor should they) as there are no ramifications of breaking them. The only people who seem to care if it was twenty miles, thirty miles, or 106.5 miles are the lawyers. Israel also has nothing to fear in the international community for the anti-semites already hate them and always will.

I saw this video today and I believe it was Ragusa who was quoting Helen Thomas. Something tells me she really isn't a fan of Israel and I'm sure the Israeli's aren't that big of fans of her. One day someone will have to explain to me why so many Jews vote Democrat.

 

you can say what ever the hell you want to say, yout still struggling with this debate.

sorry, but Im going to put my money on the guys with the bombs and the tanks and the gunships.

I pointed out quite clearly that the Isralies meet thes supply requirements, another pointless argument on your side.

none of this matters to me, this blockade has been declared legal by the worlds strongest countries, who am I to argue?

you seriously believe that? you are the most naive person I have met

---------- Added 0 hours, 1 minutes and 5 seconds later... ----------

damn good post snook