fakeitormakeit2

The 5 Arab nations wanted to destroy the newly founded Jewish nation, not to liberate their land they had not right to it. What land did the Arabs have to liberate the 1947 The British divided the Palestine Mandate meaning that Israel had a full right to the land the British gave to them, not 5 Arab nations that wanted to destroy Israel not liberate land that was never theirs http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_war_start.php You're justifying something based off of colonial powers giving rights? And by the way, the Arabs lands that attacked all once controlled Palestine. The Syrian Ottoman province included everything from Palestine to Southern Turkey. It's subdivision, the Walidiya of Jerusalem, was all Palestinian, and what is now northern Israel was part of Southern Lebanon. If you want to justify things "because Britain said so", than why do you think there was an Iraq-Iran conflict? The British decided the border of the countries on a napkin! They also did promise Palestine the same land as they did Israel, which eventually led to the two state solution which ended up with the Palestinians getting screwed. The Arabs backed up a fellow brother nation. Israel suffered many terrorist attacks and raids from Egypt so Israel acted in self defense and attack Egypt to stop this raids. Britain and France wanted to take back the Suez canal you can't blame us for their actions http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_sinai_backgd.php So Israel just decided to pick up the spoils along the way? No. Justification is easy. Truth is hard to admit. The same thing that happened in 1967 happened here there were terrorist attacks and raids form Lebanon so we acted in self defense and acted them to stop them http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_lebanon_1978.php I didn't say they weren't in self-defense I was saying Israel handled it very selfishly and set up a screwing for the Christians with no regard for their actions. Lebanon didn't of troops but it took part in raids against Israel. Egypt didn't have intent to attack Israel? where do you get your information? Egypt had built up it military presence on the border with Israel and threatened to destroy Israel i am sorry but check your facts for the truth. Israel attacked before Egypt did. The USS Liberty Incident was a mistake in the war Israel admitted to it and they paid full payment to the families of the 34 men killed in the attack. http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_sixday_backgd.php http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/67_War.html Lebanon did not raid, it was the Palestinian terror groups in Lebanon, very distinct, very offensive when you group them together, as do most Western generalists. Nasser's strategy was to scare the Israelis into submission not attack. Israel killed 1166 people in cast lead 709 were terrorist. Israel attack civilian location because the terrorist were hiding behind civilians. Only 10% of Germany supported the Nazis but they were still the leaders of Germany. so did the world have the right to take them down? many German civilians died because of the Nazis even if they were innocent. Here's the difference from when the Allies were fighting Hitler. They aimed to attack the Nazis and not just the random and innocent. Did you forget what Hezbollah did? They kidnapped our solders and then fired thousands of rockets indiscriminately and at times deliberately at civilian areas Ok, just because Hezbollah kidnapped your soldiers, again, doesn't give Israel the right to attack the innocent. Israel hit even the Christians, anti-Hezbollah, when they advanced indiscriminately.

Your facts are altered to suit you as you please. I don't have as much time as I would like to pull your fallacies apart since I have exams but I have enough time to pull this one section apart. First of all the Arabs initial attack of Israel was not an ethnic cleansing as there was not a defined intent to eliminate a specific race. You quote says it yourself "We will drive them into the sea" not “If only one country, for whatever reason, tolerates a Jewish family in it, that family will become the germ center for fresh sedition." (Adolf Hitler). The Arabs wanted to liberate their land from a foreign occupying power, while demonstrated in Hitler's quote he had an objective to eliminate the Jews no matter where they were. As for the Suez Crisis War, it had little to do with "self-defense". Under the false guise of self-defense, Israel wanted to obtain Indian Ocean access [which they did] and Britain and France wanted to take back the canal because Egypt nationalized it (which is only fair as it is in Egypt). It was a war of imperialism and opportunities, not self-defense. The Southern Lebanon Conflict in 1978 was particularly selfishly handled. During the civil war [of Lebanon], the Christians were attempting to maintain order and by Israel's flushes in the South all they did was apply more terrorist pressure on Beirut, which in term in flamed tensions in the civil war and just set up the opportunity for terrorist contending with the true Lebanese government. The Six Day War- To begin, you are wrong. Lebanon did not send troops which caused the later polarization of political factions of Christians and Muslims that resulted in the beginning of the civil war. Egypt had no intent to attack and Nasser wanted a victory without war, his mobilization of forces was an intimidation tactic and he was not going to attack. However, Israel took a preemptive strike and started a war that was not meant to be. Anything that happened following was Israeli provoked as Nasser would have backed down if Israel hadn't succumb to intimidation. There were also the crooked tactics used by the IDF, perhaps like the USS Liberty Incident? False reports by the IDF reporting the USS Liberty moving 12 knots faster than possible and being unmarked although it bore a large US flag on its side, was flying a flag at the time of attack and had its name written in English on the side (IDF testimony according to the Yerushalmi Report, fabricated 15years after the event, and American testimony according to the Clark Clifford Report, fabricated one month and a week after the incident). The "War of Gaza" (although it wasn't really a war seeing as how Israel just kind of crushed the Palestinians) was an atrocity seeing as how they directly attacked civilians of Gaza in response to actions of a terrorist group which only 26% of them support. The IDF destroyed many buildings and much infrastructure, killed many people and kept back international aid forces to assist victims. Oh and the War in 2006 where Israel advanced to the capital of Lebanon and hit even the capital building with artillery, yes that's quite defense-warranted. That was the lovely last stroke to make even the most pro-Israel Lebanese turn anti-Zionist. I would just like to say, God bless Israel and its ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. They were given a land so that they may exact the plight on the innocent which they suffered as innocents.

So whats your point dude? so you guys been genocide, stop whining, it happens everywhere, get over it ? what can i say, great humanitarian argument. Don't distort what I'm saying, I acknowledged it was bad, if that was a "stop whining" argument I would have said Holocaust, big deal. But there are many other genocides and you justify the occupation of Palestine as a sort of consolation reparation to the Jews which is completely idiotic because it doesn't matter what degree of wronging has been done to you, the innocent will never owe the wronged anything. The innocent should perhaps assist the wronged but they owe them nothing. I am not, just wanted to make sure the person in front knows what he's talking about. And ye, you seem well familier (and biased) with the issue. I am familiar with the issue, but I am not biased, I dislike impartiality, a sense of being owed and the exploitation of others justified by one's own plight. If one does not enjoy their own kicking into the ground, they should not confer their plight amongst others. so, back in 47, when the partition plan was decided, the south-west syrains (the Palestinains) together with their brothers from the east decided to reject the plan - they just couldn't afford giving those weird people with their wierd hats a small piece of land to lay their heads after years of persucation, from all the lands they had still they didn't had a squere to spare. Well, we all know what happened later. Regarding the "brotherhood" - you know as well as i what is the condition of the palestinains on their "brothers" land. some brotherhood. As I said the innocent owe the wronged nothing. I said collectively they were Syrians, but distinct Syrians, as Palestinians lived in Palestine, etc. The Palestinians owed the Jews nothing, and there were quite a few Jews in Greater Syria (Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon) until the seizure of Arab land to create Israel which prompted the Arabs to get [wrongfully] annoyed with all the Jews and expel them. The Jews could have lived in the Middle East if they wanted in Syrian states, but when you take land you're asking for enemies. And the continuation of the innocent owe the wronged nothing is evident. The Palestinians were allowed to enter into the countries of their brothers freely. However when they tried to seize Jordan they were expelled because, again, the King owed them nothing as he did nothing to them. When they entered Lebanon and became terrorists, the Maronites fought hard to kill them, because again, the innocent owe the wronged nothing, especially after they generously let them enter their country. The Palestinians had all right to retain their land when the Zionists seized it as they owed them nothing, but Jordan and Lebanon have all right to expel the Palestinians because they allowed them to enter but they then tried to takeover which is ungrateful and backstabbing. However it was not the common Palestinians who attempted to takeover, rather the terrorists, so it wasn't dispute amongst brothers, rather brothers vs. the renegade and selfish. And since i am not proven to be wrong , i am holding on to that statement. We won those 3 wars without any advantage but our wil to live in our own free country - few vs many yet we won. But that was back then..nowdays,after years of endless blood shed the only solution is to compromise. Rabin knew that,Arafat didn't. Leave the damn islamic pride a side, leave the extremist dreams of "big Israel". It will probably not happen in this generation or the next but one day people will get it into their heads, or not. Without any advantages-other than millions of US dollars, high tech weaponry supplied by the US and the support of the US president, Harry Truman, a self proclaimed Zionist himself. Oh yes, the Israelis had no advantage other than all the weapons the Arabs didn't have. You are obviously delusional if you don't think the enemies of Israel were extremely technologically inferior. I'm not quite sure you mean by "Leave the damn islamic pride a side, leave the extremist dreams of "big Israel".", especially since I don't have Islamic pride as I am not a Muslim.

Most of the people on board were turkish arabs, most of them would have been on deck for morning prayers. Turkish Arabs? Ignorance like that is why Western interventionism has greatly deteriorated the Middle East. Unless you mean Arabs who live in Turkey, which would be incorrect. Then would you care to correct and educate me instead of just railing against my education which sadly did not foccus on the distinct religons of the middle east? I apologize, my response may have been factually correct but it was a bit rude and for that I am sorry. I think it is important to make the distinctions between peoples as it would be like Arabs referring to the French as French Magyars as social context is highly important in interpreting situations and conflicts. And the Turks would be Muslim, but not Arabs as Arab is cultural while Islam is religious.

Most of the people on board were turkish arabs, most of them would have been on deck for morning prayers. Turkish Arabs? Ignorance like that is why Western interventionism has greatly deteriorated the Middle East. Unless you mean Arabs who live in Turkey, which would be incorrect as those killed were defined as Turks and not Arabs.

So, the Holocaust was bad...a litlle stain on the world history..kind of refershing to see how the new generation conceive one of the world greatest tragedies. milions were slaugter and you take it as a "bad" incendent. Now open the history book and tell me when was the last time the "Palestinians" have ruled Israel/Palestina/the region - let me give you a hint, never. dont rush to flame me for this sentence - i just want to put the facts as they are. The Holocaust was bad but there are slaughters every generation. No one knows of the Armenian Genocide and percentage-wise that was a greater murder of a race, as was the Assyrian Genocide but you never hear of those now do you? Stalin killed/led to the death of approximately seven million Ukrainians but that is hardly discussed as well. And don't play "high and mighty know-it-all" with me, because I would know the Palestinians didn't rule themselves in modern history as I'm named after an ancestor who did [he was a Syrian lord of Al Sham]. It was divided between the Mutesarrifiyyet of Jerusalem and [mostly] the Vilayet (Walidat) of Beirut. But the difference between foreign Jews ruling them as opposed to mostly Syrians is that Palestinians are Syrians [literally the same word in Arabic under a greater classification, "Shami"] so they share basic culture and brotherhood. And their division is mostly currently political not cultural, as Lebanon is also a "Shami"/Syrian country but Lebanon was a safe haven for Christians so they developed a more Europeanized version of the other Syrians, different country but ultimately same mother-province. So no, a lord from Jerusalem might have not ruled Al Sham but they were ruled by their brothers so there wasn't really a distinction or problem. You have a rather poor argument. The Lebanese never ruled themselves since the Phoenicians until their post WWII independence from France, does that make them any less valid? No, but there were in a similar case as the Palestinians. Edit: As for your claim that Israel won those three major wars without US support, that is laughable as I had to do something for a final where I took a bunch of sources in regards to US-Israeli Relations and the US has been funding Israel since the get go. Israel's funding from the US over the years adds up into the trillions.

1. Hey look there buddy, Israel has every right to exist. There's a country dedicated to every other major religion, no reason for this one not to be one. Also, go learn some history. 2. Do you want the same thing that occured in Europe to happen again? This is why this country was created, so Jewish people could leave in safety and fairness. 3. If Israel was a weak nation, it would have been destroyed by now. When it first declared independence, it was attacked by multiple countries on that day and won. Do not give me this bull [cabbage] about how it doesn't serve to exist. He's an analogy for you to understand... Black people and their independence. Ya the worlds not fair, why didn't we say that when the blacks wanted to gain equal rights and become free people. What has Israel done to the world? What has any country do to the world for that fact? 4. Here's something it gave to the world; a place to unite a common culture where you're not afraid of persecution. 1. The only country [before Israel, and it was only officially established by Benito Mussolini in the 30's] dedicated solely to a religion is Vatican City. It has the right to exist as the people of the same affiliation have occupied it for 2,000years and there was no dispute or seizure of land to create it. Also, the Vatican doesn't go around taking over Italian cities and destroys power plants, hotels and all types of infrastructure. 2. The Holocaust was bad, a minority of people dispute this. Just because something bad happens to you though doesn't mean you have the right to take something from someone who had nothing to do with your own plight. That's like someone burning down your house and it killed some of your family, do you have the right to go into another town and kick people out "your" new house because it was family tradition to believe your great great great grandfather lived there? Is that fair? Is that just? Can we really exploit others to achieve our own "fairness". 3. Do you also know how much the US pumps into Israel? If not militarily, economically for sure Israel would have already collapsed decades ago. There's a reason why they're so militarily advanced and that's because the US gives them hundreds of millions of dollars and all their old F16s. Essentially Israel would be very weak if it were not for the US giving them a spine and muscle. Guess how fast the 6-Day War ended when the US told Israel to stop? Without US support Israel would be nothing. But no worries for Israel, the Zionist Lobby in the US government is extremely powerful and they insure Israel will continue to receive support [and that an Arab Lobby remains weak, if existing at all]. 4. I have Middle Eastern Jewish friends who specifically moved out of Israel [their family lived their when it was originally Palestine] because they were heavily discriminated against because the Jews of European descent would single them out of "one of those", collaborators with "the enemy", etc. So it is a safe haven for European Jews and them alone. But Israel also gives the freedom to persecute Palestinians and other Arabs freely :thumbup:

Its more like a cop chasing someone who was "suspected" of dealing in contraband across the mexican border, shooting and killing him and then finding out after that he was innocent. And still expects a heros welcome when he gets home. Yes, Dusty your analogy was quite bad because at no time did the ship cross into Israeli territorial or contiguous waters, therefore they were never in Israeli jurisdiction. Plus humanitarians of the provision of aid bringing food to their poor brethren were killed, not criminals. And to the person who said Israel is allowed to do whatever they like off their coast in terms of the blockade, that actually isn't true. To my understanding of international law one is allowed to blockade another country's access to the sea during conflict as long as they insure their own well being. However a nation cannot blockade its own people as that would be a government abusing its own people. And also Palestine is not part of Israel, it is a different nation. ideally the entirety of the land of Palestine should not be Israel, but under international law at least the designated Palestinian territories are a foreign occupied country, therefore it is a legitimate target of naval blockade [not really though as the Palestinian territories are more like conquered periphery buffer luxuries].

Yes, they were. They never should have tried to board that ship. Just as Rony said, there you are changing the statements around again. Why do you call the people on the ship idiots? There is a saying that is very relevant in Arabic, fear can make a donkey attack a lion. The people of the ship were in all right to be where they were as it was international water. Since Israel was conducting an illegal boarding, I don't care if it was Satan himself, they had all rights to be there and they had all right to defend themselves from breakers of the law, and worse, breakers of the word they agreed to [i.e. the UN laws governing the sea which they signed]. Israel, the lion, stuck themselves in a position to pounce and the IHH, the donkey, decided to respond to an unwanted threat. Israel signed an international agreement to adhere to the laws of the sea which they break and yet they validate the existence of their country by a UN resolution? It is convenient to pick and choose what agreements to follow. Israel has also had the "it is illegal to settle occupied territory" resolution passed on them and reiterated many times which they have ignored and such but I won't get into that. Simple, because they knew who was boarding, and they attacked first. There wouldn't have been any casualties if they didn't start attacking. As I said before, they were warned before, and did you even see the radio transmission video? Thank you for the slightly irrelevant response to my post. And yes I did hear the radio transmission. As I said I don't care if Satan was on the ship, Israel broke international agreement from the same organization they claim justifies their existence therefore they are hypocrites and their agreements are worth less than the paper they are written on.

Yes, they were. They never should have tried to board that ship. Just as Rony said, there you are changing the statements around again. Why do you call the people on the ship idiots? There is a saying that is very relevant in Arabic, fear can make a donkey attack a lion. The people of the ship were in all right to be where they were as it was international water. Since Israel was conducting an illegal boarding, I don't care if it was Satan himself, they had all rights to be there and they had all right to defend themselves from breakers of the law, and worse, breakers of the word they agreed to [i.e. the UN laws governing the sea which they signed]. Israel, the lion, stuck themselves in a position to pounce and the IHH, the donkey, decided to respond to an unwanted threat. Israel signed an international agreement to adhere to the laws of the sea which they break and yet they validate the existence of their country by a UN resolution? It is convenient to pick and choose what agreements to follow. Israel has also had the "it is illegal to settle occupied territory" resolution passed on them and reiterated many times which they have ignored and such but I won't get into that.

It is a Turkish organization which was not in the jurisdiction of Israeli waters. I do not disagree that Hamas is quite a bad organization but if you deem it a genocidal organization, than as is the IDF because although they do not directly state their desire, they wish to eradicate Palestinians [or any Arab and non-Arab] who oppose their takeover of their land.

Then why are so many things banned from Gaza that have nothing to do with security? With that I agree. Pure stupidity. It's stupidity in that it doesn't work, but it's not by accident. It's being done deliberately. It was done during Olmert's term. If a serious re-evaluation began today, that could change. You "maintain" lots of things. Unfortunately, nearly all of them are self-serving, or factually incorrect parroted propaganda. So what, you now claim the bloackade isn't at all about security? Israel is *about* security? What does that mean? That it's goal is it's security? It means that you put yourselves first and only care about peace if it can be obtained on your own terms -- which means it will never happen at all. It means you consider 9 civilian lives so unimportant that you rationalize attacking ships when it was completely unnecessary. As long as they do it on Israel's terms. And they say Israel can have peace on their terms. And that's why there is no peace -- because both groups are led by selfish, self-destructive, egotistical morons who care only about knocking the other guy down and complaining about how they have been wronged, than they do about moving past the idiocy and working towards peace. Yes, Israel has terms. What do you want, a "let's supply all their wishes so we could get a lousy chance at negotiation" approach? God help you, you have such double standards. In another thread you condemned coming to the table with conditions when it pertained to Hamas and you support it now for Israel? I do not support Hamas or prec-conditioned terms but you madame are a hypocrite. And no, the blockade isn't all about security. It's also about breaking down an unruly conquered people, you have to break their spirits somehow. Oh, I'm tired of this sentence. Too bad. It's the truth. They had other options, they did not have to storm those ships. You can deny this FACT as often as you want, but it will not go away. Stop spinning things around. I didn't say an attack was obligatory, I said a search was obligatory. Search was illegal as proven in this thread on terms Israel agreed to as it was outside the "contiguous zone" outside Israel's territorial sea which they could legally search at will with valid suspicion. And your building in Jerusalem comment annoys me greatly, as half of it is conquered land. I hope any new buildings that are built are swallow in an earthquake and causes great financial destruction [and the death of none]. I apologize in advance if this post is difficult to read, I'm bad with quotes.

Don't expect a rational answer to this question. For example, why is/are chocolate, dried fruit, and seeds/nuts not allowed? I believe noodles were even banned until sometime last year. Because the IDF is getting so paranoid they think extremist groups will sneak explosive compounds in possibly hollow items and the like.

[hide=Rules on Contiguous Zones]1. In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to: (a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea; (b.) punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea. 2. The contiguous zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.[/hide] If one would wish to argue it, technically Israel was acting within International law if they suspected arms being transported by the ship, unless it was farther then the listed distance from shore. Edit: @312Ownage Thank you and I meant not posting on Arabs, rocket, etc. as it was off topic to this topic.

From the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Ok. If someone has a legal background correct me, but nowhere does that say, you may not board the ship of another country in international waters. From what I got it says If you're not fighting the people the ship belongs too you can't deny them, passage. @kinggabe Who did or did not launch missiles is not relevant to the background. Because #1 it wasn't technically in Israel and #2 Unless they accused Turkey of launching said missiles its not even the same people. It might be a bit off topic, however, the discussion was on how Israel was starving people in the gaza strip, peaceful Arabs, etc. Just proving how he's wrong. You didn't prove me wrong, all you're doing is disagreeing. This is the last I'm saying on this topic as 312Ownage is right and I did stray off-topic. @312Ownage These international laws are extremely tedious and hard to look through, they include all the procedure for how the laws were written and there must be something definite whether boarding is allowed or not, I cannot find it though.

Interestingly I looked for the Law of the Sea Convention and just read through 25pages. i couldn't find anything on jurisdiction as I could have very well been looking at the wrong meeting as there were four but the one I did read does contain a resolution that Israel is breaking. When there is territorial dispute or they are not completely self-governing, someone who blockades them must provide full resources to insure the well being of the people, which is a violation if there are the supposed starving in Gaza from the blockade. I'll keep looking for jurisdiction though. Edit: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea' under Article 87(1) which states: "the high seas are open to all states, whether coastal or land-locked." From there you can infer you cannot board as that would be violating the freedom of seas agreement. [high seas refer to non-territorial water]

Agreed. It clearly isn't their jurisdiction. This goes for any country, but seeing as how Israel is the country in question they are at fault. The people on boat were acting in rightful defense as Israel was acting illegally by violating international boundaries. The same reason [or supposedly] the US didn't just go around blasting pirates in Somalia.

See except most Arabs, believe it or not, are peaceful and decide to starve and die instead, or like my friends flee the country while the Isareli Military forcefully acquired their village. There we go over simplifying things again. You're right, no rockets were ever launched at Israeli citizens. No innocent lives were taken on Israel's side. Israel did not discharge a rocket launcher just yesterday. I said most Arabs. Why, are you a bigot and think 51% of Arabs are terrorists? You seem to be the bigot. Rony in no where said 51% of Arabs are terrorists, and the argument isn't aimed at that. Yet, many Arabs are not peaceful. Israel had no choice, again, to invade. It was either that or just sit there and let them shoot at us. Well she did say saying most Arabs was over simplifying. Please inform how I'm being a bigot by saying Arabs are peaceful? That's horrible right? And the Arabs that do attack they shoot missiles from the backs of camels[/comedy], quite threatening seeing as how they never hit their target. You can report that Joe fires a gun 200 times a day in New Jersey, making for a total of 40000 shots a year. What I didn't tell you is Joe has never shot someone because he fires his gun on a firing range for rifle practice. I'm not saying Hamas is having fun practicing rocket practice and Israel is being the man, but the fundamental parallel is there.

"Arabs" have been living on it longer than the Israelites. The Bible states this itself. There are a people in the Bible, Filistinians. In Arabic and Aramaic, a Palestinian is a Filistini. Coincidence? I think not.

See except most Arabs, believe it or not, are peaceful and decide to starve and die instead, or like my friends flee the country while the Isareli Military forcefully acquired their village. There we go over simplifying things again. You're right, no rockets were ever launched at Israeli citizens. No innocent lives were taken on Israel's side. Israel did not discharge a rocket launcher just yesterday. I said most Arabs. Why, are you a bigot and think 51% of Arabs are terrorists?

You're talking in extremes. It's not fair to say we think they are all terrorists nor is it true. Again I say would you let a bunch of strangers come into your home with boxes full of who knows what? No. Israel did what they should have done, I agree they were probably trying to make a statement so they went about doing it the wrong way, things went wrong and now everything is [cabbage]. Also lets assume they did capture these soldiers, how do you know they had the opportunity to kill them? They cant just do it in plain sight that's an instant admission of guilt. One big mistake. Too bad Palestine isn't the home of Israelis.

See except most Arabs, believe it or not, are peaceful and decide to starve and die instead, or like my friends flee the country while the Isareli Military forcefully acquired their village.

No, these people were killed after lynching the soldiers. First of all: It's not just Israel blockade, it's an international blockade so get your facts straight.. Second of all: The people are NOT starving. First of all it is an Israeli blockade, the only law they complied with is that they notified International authorities before doing it, which follows the international customary blockade law. However, that would be on the basis if the city was controlled by an enemy, which they claim is Hamas, and I disagree that the entirety of the city is Hamas controlled. They are starving and a great majority of the people live on very meager resources almost entirely donated to them as they cannot have a livelihood because they're boxed in. I have friends from Gaza in fact and they thank the God everyday for although the USA is not perfect they have freedom of movement, freedom of a livelihood, freedom to live. People are starving and it is people like you who sit on their high throne and ignore the plight of these people induced by a government fighting an enemy they aren't part of.

Saying Israel had legal rights to kill people in International Waters without clearance because the IDF allowed it is like saying Adolf Hitler legally killed 10millon people because he allowed it and it isn't his fault. "Quick let's stop them, how dare they bring in food for the starving! How dare they attempt to undermine our oppressive work!"[Fabricated] I believe its somewhere in the Torah that repetitively states to feed the poor and not oppress aliens.

And in response to the acclaimed Israeli messages, please, I trust a Comedy Central skit more than an Israeli Military report, I had to write a paper on my choosing. Three primary documents I used, The Clark Clifford Report, a New York Times Article 1967 and the Yerushalmi Report 1982 made it quite clear of Israel's deception. The Clifford Report was completely plausible, the New York Times article stated they asked the ship to ID themselves and they said ID yourselves first and IDF suspected them of being an Egyptian ship because of the response because an Egyptian ship said that 13yrs ago, regardless that they were flagging an American flag, traveling 5knots [israel claims 30 which exceeded its capacity] and had USS Liberty written in English on the side [as opposed to Arabic, even if you don't read either in English its USS Liberty, the Arabic ship's name was ألارش totally similar right?]. Then the Yerushalmi Report claimed it had no flags flying, it was traveling 30 knots [capacity 18knots], was gray like a warship (-.-) and I forget the primary reason but it contradicted their first reasoning. The point is, Israeli military reports are not a credible source regardless of being issued by a government.