They attacked before 67 and after 67, its just that after 67 they were also willing to negotiate peace, part of them, the part that doesnt is getting want he asked for as we speak. about legality, check the news.
not since 73 they havent though, as for the news I check it all the time, it says your country continually commits war crimes and is still illegally occupying the palestinian territories after 45 years
They cant fly into or from Gaza and cant operate the harbor, 300 trucks enter the strip every day, Egypt border is open and they can fly anywhere from there (5 h driving distance from an Airport), whats stopping them from creating a hi tech industry? promote sience and education and fight the diplomatic arena IF they truley want to live in peace - but save your time, we know they oppose it , they fight Abu Mazen over it, they get what they wished for, no peace with those fanatics.
Wasnt us, it was the Ailiens that attacked Israel with exploding buses and restorants, stabbed ppl in the streets , hijacking Airplanes, shoot rockets, murder families in their homes, shoot at passing cars, those Ailiens must have attacked the Arabs as well.
you are ignorant and a racist, and dont know your own history. the border is not open, you threatend egypt to keep it closed and they dont want a million refugees, on average 17 trucks get through per day, not 300, 300 was before your illegal blockade, they cant develop a hi-tech industry cause you prevent any hi-tech stuff being brought in. most gazans cant even leave gaza. I hope you feel their pain one day, you deserve it. have a read of this, this is whats called real news, which you dont get in your country except from haretz. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/16/israel
the palestinians have done all those things, since you began to illegally occupy their lands, and have killed less than a tenth as many of your citizens as you have killed theirs.
Its you who are ignorant, 300 trucks of aid not 17, goes in daily, they can start normal lives at any moment as soon as they stop the voilence.
The definition of a legitimate target is central to the laws of armed conflict. Additional Protocol I, Article 52, defines a legitimate military target as one which by [its] nature, location, purpose, or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage. Any attack requires that it be justified, in the first place, by military necessity. However, no object may be attacked if damage to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive when compared to that advantage. And if there are doubts whether a normally civilian facility is contributing to military action, the object is presumed to be civilian. Legitimate military targets include: armed forces and persons who take part in the fighting; positions or installations occupied by armed forces as well as objectives that are directly contested in battle; military installations such as barracks, war ministries, munitions or fuel dumps, storage yards for vehicles, airfields, rocket launch ramps, and naval bases. Legitimate infrastructure targets include lines and means of communication, command, and controlrailway lines, roads, bridges, tunnels, and canalsthat are of fundamental military importance. Legitimate communications targets include broadcasting and television stations, and telephone and telegraph exchanges of fundamental military importance. Legitimate military-industrial targets include factories producing arms, transport, and communications equipment for the military; metallurgical, engineering, and chemicals industries whose nature or purpose is essentially military; and the storage and transport installations serving such industries. Legitimate military research targets include experimental research centers for the development of weapons and war matériel. Legitimate energy targets include installations providing energy mainly for national defense, such as coal and other fuels, and plants producing gas or electricity mainly for military consumption. Attacks on nuclear power stations and hydroelectric dams are generally, but not always, prohibited by the laws of war. Or in short: Jaabari is a legitimate target. Israeli civilians not. Hamas is busy in crimes against humanity and they will pay for that.
Obviously. Indiscriminately shelling civilian areas is not legal - it's a war crime, and the people who launched those rockets or ordered them to be launched into civilian areas is a war criminal. This isn't even debatable...
Of all the fallacious affronts to Logic I've seen in my lifetime, this one deserves a dishonorable mention. I'm catching a contact buzz breathing the fumes rolling off this post...
A university graduate of any kind should be sufficiently intelligent as to not try to twist an unequivocal statement made by none other than the head of the UN! What exactly are you trying to do with the statement? You say he was making a point he would lose in a debate in a courtroom. So if he made such a blunder why wasn't he put straight by throngs of international legal experts, heads of states etc. etc. Come to that why haven't reputable international human rights groups such as Amnesty and HR watch which make the very same point been taken to task? Face it your side in the courtroom doesn't look much like a winning team! There is no exemption in international law making war crimes acceptable on the basis that they were the only option. Suicide bombings of congested civilian areas was also proclaimed the only form of resistance left before this threat was effectively dealt with by the barrier and other measures. When these rocket attacks are similarly countered no doubt other terrorist tactics will be resorted to and they too will be the only means left. Just tell me, is there any limit for you when it comes to acts of inhumanity in the name of the only option open for resistance?
Great, your rights to the land come up from a 2000+ year old document that states that some mystical being did all this cool stuff and gave you this land. If I walk down the street I can find a book that says that there's an entire world of wizards living in england in secret. I can also find a book that says the world is flat I can find a book that says In the end days the gods are going to have a massive brawl and that their chief is going to be swallowed whole by a wolf. Guess that means if I find a book that says it's so, I can use that as proof. Maybe if I get published a story about me owning Saudi Arabia, America will back my invasion there too.
What the (*)(*)(*)(*), seriously? You know what you are? You're a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing fascist, congratulations. I'm not even trying to insult you - I'm serous. So because of the Bible you have the right to that land? Kinda like how the Nazis had the right to exterminate the Jews because in the Bible they killed Jesus, right? No, of coarse it doesn't give you the god(*)(*)(*)(*) right.
Does that mean that you do not believe a Jewish nation ever rightfully owned Jerusalem? If not then when did it if not in biblical times?
Yes Tyrerik, jewish people many moons ago did indeed live on and build jerusalem, around biblical times. Since then it was arabs who built most of it. Id like to ask you a question about the current conflict in gaza/ southern israel; Assuming that for now the conflict cant be stopped, and knowing that while Israeli weapons are indiscriminate, Palestinian rocket weapons are wildly indiscriminate, and given that you had only the below two options to choose from......... Would you be favour of either; 1/ Palestinians having no more weapons and therefore having to cease all military operations against Israel? or 2/ Palestinians developng less indiscriminate weapons?
