UN experts condemn renewed violence and Israeli killings of Palestinians

No, even though I thoroughly (and accurately)
explained the difference between my pragmatic approach, and your idealistic one, it is you who have missed the boat, once again.

Pray tell, when was it, in history, that the "rule book," was ever uniformly followed, to the letter? That is what I mean, that this world is not ideal. Principles are rarely universal; political realities are almost always part of the calculus, and sometimes the entire equation.

Oh, so it is realistic to believe that hypocrisy can be eliminated. Sure, that sounds like a reasonable expectation.

 

I'm afraid that you're right in that they both shared similar goals and views but, mainly, they both wanted the Jews to go to Palestine which was the objective of the Haavara Agreement.

Additionally Germany's National Socialist (NS) government worked with the Zionist Federation of Germany to establish 40 training camps to train Jews for life in Palestine.(1)

When it looked like Germany was winning the war, Avraham Stern of the Zionist terrorist gang, Lehi offered to fight for Germany in exchange for help establishing a totalitarian Jewish State in Palestine.

I hope that the following information is helpful.

Thanks,






(1)“Zionism and the Third Reich”
https://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html

EXCERPT “In cooperation with the German authorities, Zionist groups organized a network of some forty camps and agricultural centers throughout Germany where prospective settlers were trained for their new lives in Palestine. Although the Nuremberg Laws forbid Jews from displaying the German flag, Jews were specifically guaranteed the right to display the blue and white Jewish national banner. The flag that would one day be adopted by Israel was flown at the Zionist camps and centers in Hitler's Germany. /19

Himmler's security service cooperated with the Haganah, the Zionist underground military organization in Palestine. The SS agency paid Haganah official Feivel Polkes for information about the situation in Palestine and for help in directing Jewish emigration to that country. Meanwhile, the Haganah was kept well informed about German plans by a spy it managed to plant in the Berlin headquarters of the SS. /20 Haganah-SS collaboration even included secret deliveries of German weapons to Jewish settlers for use in clashes with Palestinian Arabs. /21

In the aftermath of the November 1938 "Kristallnacht" outburst of violence and destruction, the SS quickly helped the Zionist organization to get back on its feet and continue its work in Germany, although now under more restricted supervision. /22” CONTINUED



(2) "History Of Israeli Far-Right Collusion With Both Hitler And Stalin – OpEd"
https://www.eurasiareview.com/10052...t-collusion-with-both-hitler-and-stalin-oped/

EXCERPT "The Israeli far-right was not to be outdone in its own efforts to curry favor with the Nazis. It proposed becoming a military asset of the Reich in its fight against the British. The document prepared by Lehi for the Nazis is described in this Wikipedia article:

It offered assistance in transferring the Jews of Europe to Palestine, in return for Germany’s help in expelling Britain from Mandatory Palestine. Late in 1940…the organization [Lehi] offered coöperation in the following terms. Lehi would support sabotage and espionage operations in the Middle East and in eastern Europe…Germany would recognize an independent Jewish state in Palestine/Eretz Israel…

Stern also proposed recruiting some 40,000 Jews from occupied Europe to invade Palestine with German support to oust the British. On 11 January 1941, Vice Admiral Ralf von der Marwitz, the German Naval attaché in Turkey, filed a report (the “Ankara document”) conveying an offer by Lehi to “actively take part in the war on Germany’s side” in return for German support for “the establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich.” CONTINUED

 

Hamas states they plan to wipe Israel off the map. You ok with that?

We support regimes that support our national security. Which best supports our national security? Palestine? Or Israel?

Question is...do you care about US national security? Doesn't sound like it.

I wish Israel would colonize that area and iradicate the hate and death cult culture..but they gotta win the war first.

 

@Giftedone
I read your dismissing of my claim that Palestinians had long ago turned down, an offer for their own nation, but I cannot find your exact quote, at the moment.

There were actually numerous initiatives to do this, prior to Israeli independence. Look up Herbert Samuel, who the British installed to administer Palestine, in 1920. For some reason, he not only pardoned an extremist leader of a Palestinian revolt, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, but in1921 appointed him to the extremely powerful position, and influential religious role, of being the Mufti of Jerusalem (for which, al-Husseini was in no way qualified). He was the one, after another failed uprising, who filed the country but then addressed Palestinians, in radio broadcasts, from Fascist Italy. Ultimately, it was the advocacy of Amin al-Husseini that led to a rejection, by Palestinians, of the Partition plan.

Interestingly, this one detail, I am finding it hard to find, in reference materials-- even though these sources cite all types of partition plans, including UNSCOP's (United Nations Special Committee On Palestine) partition plan, approved by the UN General Assembly, in1947. Yet no mention, yet, of why it was never enacted. The next year, of course, British administration of the region ended, but my recollection is still, that Palestinians turned down a partition deal. Some others who put forth partition proposals, were Britain's Peel Commission (1937), the British government White Paper (1939), & the joint U.S.- U.K. Anglo-American Committee (1946). Perhaps it had been this U.N. approved plan. Or perhaps Israel (as I had originally remembered), made the Palestinians an offer, once they'd won their independence. But I am not as interested in making this issue into an area of my scholarship, as you appear to be. So I will just leave you with a link to Amin al-Husseini, to start you off (in case you care to be better filled in, on the facts).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini

<Snip>

From as early as 1920 he actively opposed Zionism, and was implicated as a leader of the 1920 Nebi Musa riots. Al-Husseini was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment for incitement but was pardoned by the British.[10][11] In 1921, Herbert Samuel, the British High Commissioner appointed him Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a position he used to promote Islam while rallying a non-confessional Arab nationalism against Zionism.[12][13] During the 1921–1936 period, he was considered an important ally by the British authorities.[14]

His opposition to the British peaked during the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. In 1937, evading an arrest warrant, he fled Palestine and took refuge successively in the French Mandate of Lebanon and the Kingdom of Iraq, until he established himself in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. During World War II he collaborated with both Italy and Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the Nazis recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS (on the grounds that they shared four principles: family, order, the leader and faith).[15] On meeting Adolf Hitler he requested backing for Arab independence and support in opposing the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish national home. Upon the end of the war he came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution for war crimes.

In the lead-up to the 1948 Palestine war, Husseini opposed both the 1947 UN Partition Plan and King Abdullah's designs to annex the Arab part of British Mandatory Palestine to Jordan, and, failing to gain command of the "Arab rescue army" (jaysh al-inqadh al-'arabi) formed under the aegis of the Arab League, built his own militia, al-jihad al-muqaddas. In September 1948 he participated in the establishment of an All-Palestine Government. Seated in Egyptian-ruled Gaza, this government won limited recognition by Arab states but was eventually dissolved by Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1959. After the war and the 1948 Palestinian exodus, his claims to leadership were wholly discredited and he was eventually sidelined by the Palestine Liberation Organization, losing most of his residual political influence.[16] He died in Beirut, Lebanon in July 1974

 

Not sure why you are OK with wiping Israel off the map .. but no need to project your personal vices my direction .. tar me with your filth.

What do you know about National Security ? tell me how throwing out the rule book benefits our National Security ?

Way out of your depth have you swum .. responding with strawman fallacy fantasies .. glug glug glug ..

 

Holy Carp this is a load of blistering avoidance none of which addresses any of the points made .. has anything to do with .. nor does not change the fact that the Israeli Settlements and continued colonization of the "Occupied Territories" are illegal under international Law .. as is the continued aggression.

Thats all that that is relevant about Israel to the overall point .. which is that throwing out the rule book is a bad idea .. in a Do as we do world .. rather than a do as we say world.

a point that is valid without Israel example .. thus if triggered into partisan deer in headlights irrationality on mention of the word "Jew" .. just.. substitute Kosovo .. another example of "Do as we say - Not as we Do" foreign policy.

 

Then file a case in the International Court, or try encourage some nation to bring it up before the U.N. Kind of surprising, that no country has ever thought to do this.

Well, if we are limiting our conversation to just ideals, then a "do as we do world," would also be devoid of violence. So we shouldn't need to supply Palestinians with arms-- all you need do is give your little spiel about International law, and how it's a bad idea to be inconsistent on these matters, and I'm sure Israel will immediately cease hostilities, abandon all its settlements, and give Palestine its own state--
easy- peasy.
Well done.

 

They didn't expand. They defended themselves from military attacks from Egypt, Syria and Jordan and won some land in the process. These countries caused their own loss of territory.

 

Now sure how you wish me to respond this worthless post which fails to address anything stated to you other than admitting you don't mind that your position is hypocrisy ?

And this is the problem .. but it is not about your acceptance of hypocrisy .. nor Israel in particular. This is about whether or not it is a good idea to throw out the rule book .. your response thusfar "Hypocrisy can't be eliminated so might as well"

You goona stick with that one .. and call it pragmatic .. which it is anything but .. "Do as we say .. Not as We do" foreign policy used to be OK .. we could get away with it for reasons explained. What you are failing to understand is that when other nations start doing as we do .. its a problem .. your solution the idealistic one ... no longer pragmatic.

So .. a complete fail on both counts at understanding what is going on here.

 

This is done all the time .. what the hell are you talking about ? - have you absolutely idea that the UN has criticized Israel many times over this 70 year blood fued ? Heck .. even the US has criticized Israel's illegal actions over the years... and why would you tell me to file a case .. are you lost ?

 

I think I answered you, but if not let me repeat:
Up to 1947 Jews LEGALLY purchased any piece of land in Palestine. After 1947 armed conflict erupted, with massacres by both sides. After proclamation of state of Israel, Palestinians with armies from Egypt, Transjordan (now Jordan), Syria, Lebanon and Iraq attacked Jewish state which was recognized by United Nations. Arabs lost the war and Jews expelled some Arabs from some territories and some Arabs were allowed to stay. Arabs expelled all Jews from conquered territories.
Arabs did not return the land they stole from Jews and Jews did not return the land they stole from Arabs.
So why do you think Jews should return stolen land while Arabs should keep the stolen land?

If you think that the Nakba was comparable to the Holocaust, it means not know anything about the Holocaust or about the Nakba. Don’t worry, I can explain you the difference:
Nuremberg laws:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws

Not such thing happened to Arabs. As matter of fact Israeli Arabs have more right than Arabs in any Arab country.
Germans expelled all Jews to ghettos, Arabs who remind in Israel were not expelled to ghettos.
Germans send Jews from ghettos to work/death camps – no such thing happen to Arabs in Israel.
Germans exterminated millions of Jews, there were only sporadic cases were Israeli killed civilian Arab citizens of Israel.

So what was the Nakba? It was the Arabs lost war, the same as lost war between two ethnic groups, the losing side can call the war ‘the catastrophe’, but not the Holocaust.
If the Nakba was the Holocaust, what you would call the Chechnya war, Pakistan-India war, recent Balkan wars, Syrian civil war or Nagorno-Karabakh war? Holocaust too?

OK, if you want I can comment:
(1) http://www.sott.net/signs/signs154.htm

The site sott.net information:
Domain:sott.net
Registrar:CloudFlare, Inc.
Registered On:2004-02-04

I am not sure who they are, are they journalists, or people who just copy and paste information which support their view? And I didn’t see the sources of their information. You have right to believe any information you see on the internet, but I have different standards. For example the site says:
“Today's conditions brought to you by the Bush Junta - marionettes of their hyperdimensional puppet masters - Produced and Directed by the CIA, based on an original script by Henry Kissinger, with a cast of billions.”.
This is emotional language and from my experience sites which use emotional language try emotionally and not logically to convince readers. BTW – I am not Bush supporter, I think Bush was worse president than Trump. Yes, I know it suppose to be joke, but this joke shows what information you will see on this page.

From this site:
"We must use TERROR, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."
ISRAEL KOENIG The Koenig Memorandum", Israeli government report

The full Koenig Memorandum is here:
https://palestina-komitee.nl/wp-con...Colonization-West-Bank-Gaza-March-30-1976.pdf

I searched the document for the word “terror” – no such word found
I searched the document for the word “assassination” – no such word found
I searched the document for the word “Arab” – 11 time found.
Conclusion – this document spreads fake information.

I also searched the internet for "We must use TERROR, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation”
The result: “About 1,370 results (0.35 seconds) “

Conclusion – this fake information was spread by an army of internet trolls or gullible people.

I think that you would benefit from using a wider variety of RELIABLE sources and be not blindly trust every information from the Web.

Did Ben Gurion said in 1937 “"We must expel Arabs and take their places."?
Probably he said, and I am sure Arab leaders said the same about Jews, the Hebron Massacre did not happened without incitement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

Did Dayan said in his diaries: "Our strategy was always to provoke the Arabs and get an appropriate response so we could attack and smash them."?
Maybe he said it, but if you served in the army you should know that tactic to provoke enemy to make stupid move is a sign of a good military planning. But anyway, this site did not specify the name of the book and the page number – so if you are gullible person, you have the right to believe it, my standard to believe is a little different.

But what about the other side? Only Jews expressed they hate to Arabs? Are we going to accuse Jews only?
How about Ahmad al-Shukeiri the first Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shukeiri

Here Jordanian Professor Calls To Throw Jews Into The Sea:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2378509982445822

Hamas calls for the mass-murder of Jews worldwide

You must be joking or you don’t know Gaza’s history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip
Up to 1967 Gaza was a part of Egypt, so if it was a prison, it was Egyptian prison and Israel had nothing to do with Egyptian prisons.

In 2005, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip and Gaza is independent entity. Gaza leaders can use donation money to build schools, hospitals, industry or to build rockets and attack Israeli electricity and water utility which support Gaza with water and electricity. Guess what Gaza leaders chose?

And what are some Gaza people choosing? Some of them used a special permit to work in Israel to explode bombs in Israel and Gaza people are surprised when after such attacks Israel cancels work permits.
And who is the most amazing Gaza person? No doubt Wafa al Bass:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafa_al_Bass

I thought I convinced you that that it is very difficult task to choose to whom to believe – to the theory that Wikipedia is influence by Right Wing Israeli extremists and has a gross pro Israel bias or to the theory that Wikipedia is influence by anti Semites, so I decided to check. I found Wikipedia pages which some of my friends call anti Semitic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settler_violence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ami_Popper

More, on the site you quoted: (2) "How Israel and its partisans work to censor the Internet"
https://israelpalestinenews.org/israel-partisans-work-censor-internet/

it says: “Under this program, Israeli students are paid $2,000 to work five hours per week to “lead the battle against hostile websites.”.
Now lets use very simple logic:

https://take-profit.org/en/statistics/wages/israel/

In Israel the average salary for 40 hours/week is 3585.949 USD/Month, minimum salary for 40 hours/week is 1574.96, so which person will believe that students for very simply job will be paid $2000 for 5 hours/week?
Do you believe it?

Israelis are not different from other people, many people will try to convince the public their side is right, I am doing it, you and Arabs are doing the same. Most of governments spend plenty of money to do it – I am learning Spanish from reading BBC site in Spanish, the US has radio programs in different languages, many people from different countries trying spread their own ‘truth’, so why Israelis should be different?

Well, I showed you 3 Wikipedia pages which for sure are not pro Israeli, I showed you that your site (2) posted false information, so do you still believe Israelis are censoring Internet and Wikipedia?
Can you show me a Wikipedia page which shows pro Israeli view which contradict the Academia?

BTW: I am using wider variety of sources, but finding Wikipedia pages is much easier. The only source of information I refuse to use is the source who claims that one side is always right and the other is always bad, and it includes some Israeli sites.

As I showed you – Wikipedia shows articles which criticize Israel, but all the sites you showed me ALWAYS criticize one side and praise another. So maybe you would benefit from using a wider variety of sources which are not taking only one point of view?

 

@zalekbloom:

I'm sorry I gave you the wrong address for the Moshe Dayan quote.

Here's a working link for the same quote:

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2003/06/09/16175791.php

"Our strategy was always to provoke the Arabs and get an appropriate response so we could attack and smash them". Israeli General Moshe Daylan


Re:

Of course I agree your observation in blue.
I use sources that support my opinion, you seem to do the same thing as does everyone on this forum but, the net result is that we learn more by doing research and are lucky enough to communicate with people around the globe.

One of the reasons I went to the Mid East was to better understand the conflict. I heard plenty from the Arabs who were great to me the whole 10 - 11 months I was walking and hitch hiking around Iraq, Turkey, Syria etc but because of the '73 War, I couldn't ago to Israel and talk to Israelis.
While I may not agree with all you have written, I'm trying harder to understand the conflict from an Israeli perspective.

I'll write more later.

Thanks,

 

The real question, is whether or not you will actually explain, define the supposed hypocrisy, which you so easily charge. There is no hypocrisy, in my argument. I was merely pointing out, that the world is often very hypocritical.

So, in your opinion, all "other nations" do follow "the rule book?"

You either fail to grasp, or simply misrepresent my reply. Only the text, in red, is correct. I had not actually been considering that statement of patent truth, to be making an argument.

I had, actually, only been trying to straighten out, your own, illogical OP.

There are two ways, in which one can judge some political situation. One of those, is the pragmatic way, which takes into consideration all the elements of any given situation, and all the considerations of all the players. But you discarded those, when I began to bring up some of them, saying that none of it was "relevant," except the "rule book;" that is, only what is right and acceptable, and what is not. So, fine-- that means you are not interested in making a pragmatic argument but, rather, the other type: a moral argument.

I remind you that, one of the first things I had said, was that I agreed that Israel deserved the lion's share of blame, in this unfortunate arrangement. This is because, as they are the ones in control, the onus has been on Israel to at least earnestly push for an acceptable resolution. Perhaps, at first, they had, but Palestinians had been unreasonable, refusing to compromise, when presented with legitimate templates for a solution. But at some point, a large part of the Israeli population, took the attitude of, "all right, then, screw you!" and only gave lip service to "the two state solution." Those will now put all kinds of conditions upon Palestinians: designate their leaders (Hamas) as terrorists, and then say that they don't negotiate with terrorists; but if Palestinians send a delegation without Hamas, Israel rebuffs it, by saying it is not truly representational. It's all just a shell game. I get it. And I acknowledged it.

But where your moral argument gets lost, is in concluding that, then, we should send weapons to the Palestinians, which is not in keeping, with a moral judgement. In that type, any repercussions, other than personal disdain, occur in the hereafter. The decision of whether or not to send weaponry, is innately a practical one. One would need consider things, of which you will consent to hear nothing.

For example, the fact that no weapons could be securely delivered to Palestinians, and that, even if they could, would be insufficient to enable them to put up an effective resistance against Israel-- as Ukraine undoubtedly has, against Russia-- would understandably be weighed into the decision. You simply want to say it's wrong, and so we should respond, in this particular way. But something's being wrong-- if you did not realize this-- does not, in the real world, necessitate immediate remediation (and certainly not of any particular type). Any decision about military assistance-- again, if you need to be informed of this fact-- requires more than simply, that some situation is wrong.

Therefore, the great irony in your argument, accusing the U.S. (& me, & probably anyone else who disagrees with you) of hypocrisy, is that it is completely inconsistent.

 

DEFinning said: ↑
Then file a case in the International Court, or try encourage some nation to bring it up before the U.N. Kind of surprising, that no country has ever thought to do this.

No, I am not lost. My words were facetious, meant to suggest that the world does not function, the way you imagine, or at least not the way you depict it. If you don't want to admit anything outside of the morality of a given, current circumstance, then this cannot lead to any real world plan of response. If you want to make a case for military aid, FYI, this traditionally requires more than just showing something to be wrong.

Do you know-- contrary to appearances-- upon which of those two, distinctly different paths, you have embarked, in your thread?

 

'

You tell me to file a case with the ICC ? how does that make your claim true .. then say your claim was facetious .. and on the basis of this self admitted facetious nonsense somehow the world is not as I suggest .. but you don't say what I have said that you think is out of line.

What did you want me to say to this pile of discombobulated irrational nonsense that has no relation to the claim under discussion .. namely .. that Israel has not violated international law ? This claim was shown to be false .. preposterous nonsense to be honest .. as stated to you previously .. even the US has called out Israel from time to time over this 80 year blood feud.

If you wish to make a case to arm Ukraine on this basis you are welcome to try .. but you will also be making the case to arm the palestinians .. unbeknownst to yourself apparently but it matters not to reality .. the one you can not seem to get a handle on ..then projecting your failings onto others.

You wish to throw out the rule book .. and that is fine .. just don't cry to me when others stop following the rules and then pretend not to be a hypocrite.

 

*To the contrary, this is your own failing, by extrapolating, from the fact that Russia & Israel are both violating International law, in different situations, and that we are providing arms to one of the victims, that "International law" stipulates that this is what should be done, in all cases. That is the utter nonsense! As with any other law, the "sentence" is determined by a judge's discretion, based on the details of the specific situation in question. There is no blanket concept, that if we do such & such in these circumstances, we must do exactly the same thing, even when to do so, would make no sense whatsoever. These two situations are very different, from a practical standpoint. That perspective cannot be removed, as you wish to do, in our consideration of a response.

As I have already explained, I believe the international community has the leverage to best remediate the Palestinian issue, through sanctions; sending more arms into Palestine would not be doing anyone any good (except for the arms manufacturers). On the contrary, arms sent to Ukraine have drastically altered what would otherwise, likely be the dynamic, there. On a practical level, the two situations are not comparable.

 

The majority of the world voted in favor, and so it exists. Nobody cares about the minority who voted against it for hating the 2 state solution instead of a 1 state solution with an apartheid system.

 

stop lying already

 

Unfortunately your maps don't help. Both Gaza and the West Bank are part of Israel regardless of who lays claim to it. They won them in a war against their anti semitic neighbors. Putting up a map of disputed territory doesn't change ownership of the territory. Stop lying already. These things are history. It wouldn't take much for you to read about it.

 

The world says East Jerusalem, Golan, Gaza and the West Bank aint part of Israel.
It's totally irrelevant that thieves disagree. It aint theirs.
And if they want peace, than they need to put their racist act together and pack up and leave.
That, and return the real estate they stole in Israel itself through racist terrorism.

Also, you're not denying that there was expanding. You lied previously they didn't.

Go tell that to the Jews who want their properties back when they were the biggest losers of WWII.

 

The U.S. won some Pacific Islands from the Japanese in WWII. I suppose we have to give them back?

 

Good that it seems was some thought put forth .. but once again is backwards and discombobulated thought ... how you read something .. but what you think you read is something completely different than the words on the page .. some made up version of events that does not mirror reality.

So .. "To the Contrary" this is not my failing but your failure-- the failure to understand what you read .. and so you present some made up version of what someone said known as Strawman Fallacy..

I did not say International law stipulated arms in any cases never mind all. This is made up nonsense or to use your term "Utter Nonsense"

You then blather that the situations are different .. 1) didn't claim otherwise 2) explained to you how those differences don't matter .. and how your claim that they are not comparable is completely false. .. Which one did you miss the first and second time around.

What part of "Both are violations of international law" .. did you have trouble understanding on the 4th time round the hill .. and that is the only comparison being made . so quite pretending otherwise ... in this fantasy made up world you are presenting ... a drama you are presenting in order to avoid the reality that has been presented to you .. the hypocrisy therin

I even used an example different than Israel .. to drive home the point ... so why are you yammering on about Israel .. saying the two situations are different .. but completely failing to explain how and why it matters ..

This is not about just Israel .. and not at all about Israel in some aspects .. Throwing out the rule book .. applies to everyone .... we either abide by it .. or we do not. This is the point that you have yet to catch - be it willingly or not.

Throwing out the rule book has consequences .. why this is so confounding and difficult to understand .. I do not know .. this is not just about Israel .. not just about US maybe giving weapons to the Palestinians .. but Iran giving them weapons .. much better weapons .. missiles that will actually hit and do damage .. as opposed to the home made fire-works in current use.

Or Russia or China or Turkey or Syria helping out these freedom fighters .. and others around the world ..including the Russian Separatists ....

Are you not glad Russia is helping out those Russian Separatists the way Nato helped out Kosovo ? .. bombing the Chinese Embassy in Serbia .. taking out the public radio station - intentionally similare to when Israel did it not too long ago cept Israel's attack was worse as was not in war .. just a random terrorist event taking out Hospitals ... and so on.

Whats wrong DEF .. what good for goose not good for gander ? Sup with that mate ...

Throwing out the rule book has consequences .. one's you were completely unaware .. failed to consider . your assessment of the board .. fuzzy fuzzy ..through the lens of a Fog ...

The question is what the best move on the board is .. first thing to address is best for who .. when I speak I am talking for the average US citizen .. whats best for he .. but also the world in general .. the two connected

My position - is that "Do as we say - not as we do" is not good when others do as we do. What is the difficulty .. do you agree or disagree with this premise .. rather than deflect with strawman fallacy ?!

And last but not least and to end on a high note. .. out of a cacophony of incoherence... you say something quite sensible .. Sanctions.
I agree that arming the Palestinians could well be a terrible option .. and certainly Sanctions should be tried prior to that happening... but, the nation that wants to arm the Palestinians may not have the power to enforce sanctions.. US does not even have that power anymore .. needs at least the EU and a bunch of other nations on board to be worth anything.. but definitely worth a try .. and I think would produce results.

but -- the nation may not have that power .. and if there is no rule book .. who is to say the other nation can not arm the Palestinians .. and without the rule book there will be no functional enforcement mechanism .. or at least such will be considerably more difficult.

You wanna start seizing Yachts from folks in soverign nations .. OK .. don't cry when Russia starts seizing Yachts -- Tankers .. and what ever else it pleases.

 

whataboutism, when you got nothing to dispute.

 

Psst .. over hear .. Psst .. you have things all backwards mate .. it is those who have no argument and no game who use the term