toldailytopic: Does Israel have the right to blockade the Gaza Strip?

[mighty_duck]

Nice try but no cigar!

The principle of freedom of the high seas has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy with Americans fighting in 4 wars over the last 3 centuries for the express purpose of defending it.

If that had been an America ship boarded on the high seas instead of a Turkish one, the US Mediterranean Fleet would have been dispatched in short order to teach the offending nation a painful lesson in maritime law.

No nation, whether it be America, Israel or otherwise, is obligated to accept another nation's generous offer "to dock in a nearby port and complete its stated mission" as long as it remains in international waters.

Breaching the blockade by force would be an act of war, with all the relevant consequences. Lets hope it doesn't come to that, even though there are voices in Turkey demanding it now.

And this whole "freedom of the high seas" 'you've been promoting in several threads is a red herring.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Ezekiel, Chapters 38, 39.
Psalm 83.

 

[chrysostom]

the pirates of Somalia do it all the time

 

[Delmar]

All of that is water under the bridge.

Regardless of what has happened in the past, Israel is now an established sovereign nation similar to how the USA is an established sovereign nation. And nation's have a right to protect themselves.

What do you plan to do review the entire history of the earth and determine who has the right to be a nation and who doesn't? Are you going to "mark off" every interloper?

Heck, the entire world is filled with interlopers!

To expand on Knights point, just a bit. Could those of you who think Israel does not have a right to be there please tell me, which nations on Earth established their borders without war?

 

[Granite]

Neat, but why should I or anyone else care about someone else's will or detriment?

Start another thread if you like, I don't want to derail this one.

 

[kmoney]

It is debatable whether the US under Obama is nearly as pro-Israel as under Bush. I think it could be argued that Israel is standing alone (before Armageddon, no one but the returning Messiah will come to her aid....we are not there yet).

I think Canada may be one of her last allies. O, Canada....we stand on guard for thee.... (our Prime Minister is a true Christian, but I am skeptical about Obama).

Obama's talk isn't as pro-Israel as some people before him, but I think if push comes to shove, his actions and policies will be. He'll be no different.

 

[kmoney]

Would an angry black man be justified in any wrong thing they do as a result of being tempted to anger by evil white folk, do you think? Is anyone justified in any wrong so long as they can establish someone else angered them?

In case you're missing what you're saying here, I'll try to illustrate: Even if everyone on the planet and throughout all human history agreed that Israel is responsible for all anger everywhere on the planet and throughout all of human history it won't justify one single wrongdoing as a result.

If you're going to argue that terrorism will continue so long as terrorists are angry....then yeah, you're right. And, according to you, all terrorists are justified because they're all angry at someone about something or other.

You know, if everyone thought like you then probably the earth would be down to one lone survivor in short order. Who'd probably get angry at themselves for something stupid they did sooner or later and blow their own head off.

You, sir, are blaming the victim.

And please, don't bother arguing the victim here deserves it in order to justify you're blaming them. Because that'd pretty much establish there's no hope for you.

I could be wrong, non-excluvistic would have to clarify, but I don't think he was necessarily justifying Hamas' actions. He was simply looking at cause and effect, and that's not a bad thing to do. Unfortunately it seems like when that is mentioned a lot of people jump to conclusions like you just did. That we are justifying terrorist activities or that we are being "soft" on terror. Evaluating whether policies are actually helping our hurting our cause is a beneficial thing to do.

 

[Granite]

Obama's talk isn't as pro-Israel as some people before him, but I think if push comes to shove, his actions and policies will be. He'll be no different.

There is no way an American president ever defies Israel. It will simply not happen.

 

[chrysostom]

There is no way an American president ever defies Israel. It will simply not happen.

no but they might just set them adrift

will that be good enough for you?

 

[kmoney]

no but they might just set them adrift

will that be good enough for you?

set adrift on memory bliss?

 

[Non-Excluvistic]

I could be wrong, non-excluvistic would have to clarify, but I don't think he was necessarily justifying Hamas' actions. He was simply looking at cause and effect, and that's not a bad thing to do. Unfortunately it seems like when that is mentioned a lot of people jump to conclusions like you just did. That we are justifying terrorist activities or that we are being "soft" on terror. Evaluating whether policies are actually helping our hurting our cause is a beneficial thing to do.

Exactly. That's why I didn't even waste my time replying to MaryContrary. She seems to be more focused on being contrary than rational.

Kmoney, what you said, is the point I was making. :thumb:

 

[Ps82]

Israel has a right to defend itself against enemies that threaten its existence and the lives of its citizens. If people are peaceful, then they will willingly respect the rules of a nation. When people are hostile, they will challenge the rules and stir up trouble.

There are many people in the middle east that have been lied to and persecuted by their own countries. They have been indoctrinated and used like pawns in a "Let's Get Rid of Israel Game". Due to the agenda of their governments they have been persecuted by their own leaders by being put in harms way and being asked to give their lives for the state.

All because there are leaders in the middle east, who won't accept little ole Israel among them. Do they know how sad, pitiful, and misled they seem in the eyes of the rest of the world? Due to wealth in their lands and their fanaticism, they are both powerful and scary. That makes them enemies of the 'free world'.

Israel is small and vulnerable ... but it represents what these fanatics will do to the rest of us, if we show them that we will acquiesce to their efforts in Israel.

I guess our country lacks courageous leaders at this time. What a shame to call our president the Commander in chief of our military ... What a shame to depend on legislative bodies that are more interested in taxing their people than defending freedom in the world.

Well, that's my opinion of things.

 

[bybee]

Well

Well

To expand on Knights point, just a bit. Could those of you who think Israel does not have a right to be there please tell me, which nations on Earth established their borders without war?

If I remember my history the Palestinians are descendants of the Philistines. And where did the Philistines come from?
I think the immensely rich Sheiks in the oil rich middle-eastern countries are fearful that Israel's form of government might be attractive to their own down-trodden masses.
Perhaps our righteous indignation ought to be directed at them for their incredibly greed and denying basic human necessities to their own people. bybee

 

[Ps82]

Here is an interesting Biblical event.
God gave a son to a childless couple. His name was Samson. He was set aside for God's purpose.

What was that divine purpose?
ANSWER:
He was to come into conflict with the Philistines, who had not previously been driven out of the Promised Land by Israel as God had told them.

Samson did not hate the Philistines - on the contrary he enjoyed hanging out with them as buddies. He even fell in love with a Philistine girl, but, being rather egotistical, he assumed he could out smart his friends in a costly joke.
His bride to be betrayed him ... he had to pay the price and was humiliated ... and thus the conflicts began with him. He taunted them because of their cheating and betrayal... they tried to kill him ... and so the conflict began ... and spread to the whole nation..

But this was all part of God's plan, and Samson was God's tool ... for stirring up trouble between the nations of Israel and the Philistines ... in order that the nation of Israel would finally rise up and run them out of the Land - instead of allowing them to continue to influence Israel with their heathenish practices.

Knowing this story ... gives me a reason to ponder whether God is involved in what is going on in the Middle east today... or,, at least, perhaps the Arabs have read the book of Judges and understood the tactics of how God was able to use a Samson to drive out unwanted people.

BTW, I do not believe that the Palestinians of today are descendants of the Philistines. I've heard it explained in the past on TV that these people were Arab refugees that no one in the Middle east wanted to keep in their lands (You know how tribal they are and how they persecute one another) ... so they deliberately set these refugees up in an area near Israel and called that area by an ancient name once used there - Palestine. Therefore, they are called Palestinians today.

The Middle eastern countries are using them in the same way that God used Samson. They are to stir up constant trouble between Israel and the Arabs so that their people will finally rise up and agree to destroy Israel out of the land.

It's a conflict that is as old as the books of Exodus and Judges...
Well, God has already chosen sides! Nations of the world beware of whose side you are taking!

 

[jgarden]

There is no way an American president ever defies Israel. It will simply not happen.

Unfortunately, "Granite" is probably much closer to the truth than most Americans would care to admit.

After establishing a Constitution that clearly separates Church and State, the Founding Fathers would be "rolling-over-in-their-collective-graves" if they knew that much of American foreign policy in the late 20th and early 21stC focuses on the fulfilment of Biblical prophecy (establishing/preserving the state of Israel).

Is it too much to ask that a US president be allowed to set a foreign policy that serves America's best interests, or has US politics been "highjacked" by the Jewish and conservative Christian lobby groups to such an extent that American citizens and their government are dutifully willing to accept their "marching orders" from Tel Aviv?

 

[godrulz]

Like it or not, Israel is the center of biblical eschatology, not America. Regardless of what America, Iran, etc. does or does not do, God's hand is on Israel and her covenants/purposes will be fulfilled in the end. This does not mean everything secular or Jewish Israel does is defensible or condoned by God (much of the OT is God's judgments on Israel). Iran/Persia, Iraq, Russia, China, etc. also will have an end time role.

As with Hitler, there is a spiritual warfare/Satanic centering around Jews, not just political issues.

 

[jgarden]

Breaching the blockade by force would be an act of war, with all the relevant consequences. Lets hope it doesn't come to that, even though there are voices in Turkey demanding it now.

And this whole "freedom of the high seas" 'you've been promoting in several threads is a red herring.

******************************************************************

From the beginning of the American nation, U.S. political leaders championed the view that the seas ought to be free in war as well as in peace.

..... The American assertion of the principle of freedom of the seas thus became closely connected to the principle of freedom of commerce. Applied in wartime, these principles translated into the right of citizens of neutral states to carry on their normal trading pursuits without interference by the belligerents, unless that trade was in a narrowly defined list of war goods destined for a belligerent.

http://www.americanforeignrelations...ns-of-the-concept-of-freedom-of-the-seas.html

The traditional US position has been that ships from neutral states (ie Turkey, Ireland) should be allowed to carry on normal trade without intereference by the beligerents (Israel, Gaza) unless the trade was in a narrowly list of "war goods" destined for a belligerent (despite the fact that they boarded the Turkish ship, the Israeli government has not released a manifest indicating that it was carrying "war goods").

The traditional US position does not only recognize the right of neutral ships to sail in international waters free from the threat of boarding (principle of freedom on the seas), but it would also deny Israel's right to establish a blockade stopping neutral ships from trading with a beligerent (Gaza), if they were not carrying "war goods" destined for that belligerent (Gaza).

Does "mighty_duck" have any other questions about the color of herring?

 

[Non-Excluvistic]

Is this your opinion or a religious encouraged opinion?

Is this your opinion or a religious encouraged opinion?

Israel has a right to defend themselves against enemies that threaten its existence and the lives of its citizens. If people are peaceful,they will willingly respect the rules of a nation and . When people are hostile, they will challenge the rules and stir up trouble.

If you aren't using a double standard or being religiously bias to come to your conclusion, we can also say the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves against enemies that threaten its existence and the lives of its citizens. If people are peaceful,they will willingly respect the rules of a nation and . When people are hostile, they will challenge the rules and stir up trouble.

Right? Or is there some special pleading for Israel?

There are many people in the middle east that have been lied to and persecuted by their own countries. They have been indoctrinated and used like pawns in a "Let's Get Rid of Israel Game". Due to the agenda of their governments they have been persecuted by their own leaders by being put in harms way and being asked to give their lives for the state.

Unless you are using a double standard or being religiously bias, we can also say that many people in the West that have been lied to and persecuted by their own countries. They have been indoctrinated and used like pawns in a "Let's Get Rid of Muslims, and Arabs". Due to the agenda of their governments they have been persecuted by their own leaders by being put in harms way and being asked to give their lives for the state.

Right? Or is there some special pleading to be presented to say why the same is not true in reverse?

All because their are leaders in the middle east, who won't accept little ole Israel among them. Do they know how sad, pitiful, and misled they seem in the eyes of the rest of the world? Due to wealth in their lands and their fanaticism, they are both powerful and scary. That makes them enemies of the 'free world'.

If you are not using a double standard, or coming to your conclusions based on some religious bias, we can also say that leaders in the West, who won't accept little ole Muslims and Arabs among them. Do they know how sad, pitiful, and misled they seem in the eyes of the rest of the world?

Right? Or is there some special pleading to be added?

And what do you mean when you say the rest of the world? You mean they look ridiculous to the western world, right? Because mid-east all the way to the far east isn't to fond of Israel and the west, and Westerners look sad, pitiful, and misled in their eyes too.

I guess our country lacks courageous leaders at this time. What a shame to call our president the Commander in chief of our military ...

Going to war or entering into confrontation on anothers behalf, especially for shear bases of religious encouraged conflict is not a sign of a leader's courage, nor is it a sign of America lacking courageous leaders. Doing such things would be a sign of ignorance and carelessness.

What a shame to depend on legislative bodies that are more interested in taxing their people than defending freedom in the world.

How will America pay for the bombs without all those Christians working hard and paying their taxes?



When people make arguments or give opinions that are interchangeable and can be said in reverse with just changing the name of who they were talking about, it becomes obvious that the argument isn't based on critical thinking or efforts to know the truth; it is based on bias in promotion of ones personal beliefs, regardless of what the truth may be.

 

[Ps82]

Like it or not, Israel is the center of biblical eschatology, not America. Regardless of what America, Iran, etc. does or does not do, God's hand is on Israel and her covenants/purposes will be fulfilled in the end. This does not mean everything secular or Jewish Israel does is defensible or condoned by God (much of the OT is God's judgments on Israel). Iran/Persia, Iraq, Russia, China, etc. also will have an end time role.

As with Hitler, there is a spiritual warfare/Satanic centering around Jews, not just political issues.

According to God's word ... it matters whether nations align themselves with Israel or not.

So Israel may not be perfect ... but God has already chosen sides and warns the nations to do the same or else.

 

[Ps82]

If you aren't using a double standard or being religiously bias to come to your conclusion, we can also say the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves against enemies that threaten its existence and the lives of its citizens. If people are peaceful,they will willingly respect the rules of a nation and . When people are hostile, they will challenge the rules and stir up trouble.

Right? Or is there some special pleading for Israel?



Unless you are using a double standard or being religiously bias, we can also say that many people in the West that have been lied to and persecuted by their own countries. They have been indoctrinated and used like pawns in a "Let's Get Rid of Muslims, and Arabs". Due to the agenda of their governments they have been persecuted by their own leaders by being put in harms way and being asked to give their lives for the state.

Right? Or is there some special pleading to be presented to say why the same is not true in reverse?



If you are not using a double standard, or coming to your conclusions based on some religious bias, we can also say that leaders in the West, who won't accept little ole Muslims and Arabs among them. Do they know how sad, pitiful, and misled they seem in the eyes of the rest of the world?

Right? Or is there some special pleading to be added?

And what do you mean when you say the rest of the world? You mean they look ridiculous to the western world, right? Because mid-east all the way to the far east isn't to fond of Israel and the west, and Westerners look sad, pitiful, and misled in their eyes too.



Going to war or entering into confrontation on anothers behalf, especially for shear bases of religious encouraged conflict is not a sign of a leader's courage, nor is it a sign of America lacking courageous leaders. Doing such things would be a sign of ignorance and carelessness.



How will America pay for the bombs without all those Christians working hard and paying their taxes?



When people make arguments or give opinions that are interchangeable and can be said in reverse with just changing the name of who they were talking about, it becomes obvious that the argument isn't based on critical thinking or efforts to know the truth; it is based on bias in promotion of ones personal beliefs, regardless of what the truth may be.

Yep, I support Israel.
I consider many of the Middle Eastern countries my enemy too... for they proclaim to hate our nation as well... and have openly attacked us.

I'm not - duh! I hear them and comprehend. I do not regard them lightly. I do not like war ... but I do believe in defense. Until we are all tolerant of each other ... then I will take sides.