Whilst Thousands are Murdered by Isis the left still wanks on about Israel

The worst humanitarian crisis in the Middle East is the actions of Isis yet you would think by the way the left wanks on that Its Israel. The left clearly couldn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about human rights..just bashing Israel for the sake of it.

 

ISIS wouldn't exist if the US hadn't invaded Iraq in response to 911, and 911 would have been unlikely if the US hadn't supported Israel's occupation of Palestine.

 

Would isis exist without all the israel buls**t?

we trained all these veterens and militarised them at the behest of the israel lobby. That's why we wank on about it.

liars always have a problem with people identifying the cause of a problem and always point out the symptoms. It's obvious why.

But the good thing is liars create a pattern which always makes things bad. It's only a matter of time.

 

Occupation occurs during war and it has been this way since history began, even when Palestinians declare war on Israel. When Palestinians rescind their declaration of war and take the violent destruction of Israel from their official position which was their policy long prior to there ever being an occupation and move towards a peace treaty I would imagine that Israel would be more than happy to talk about ending their occupation as other militarys have done once hostilities are over.

In the meantime, the US invaded Iraq with the authorization of the UNSC to use force in order to ensure Iraq complied with it's ceasefire obligations as per UNSCR 687 and the Iraq Resolution of Congress, Al Qaeda committed 911 for more reasons than support for Israel;

"In Osama Bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America",[5][6] he explicitly stated that al-Qaeda's motives for their attacks include: Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia,[6][7][8] US support of Israel,[9][10] and sanctions against Iraq.[11]"

So, pick a few and run with them but to blame the attacks on any one thing is to make an error, AQ is a global terrorist network looking to form a global caliphate, not to simply beat up on five million Jews.

 

ISIS is not the result of Israel. Ariel Sharon in private warned(Israeli political, diplomatic, and security officials all warned against invasion saying Iran is the main enemy) George Bush against invading Iraq claiming it would turn Iraq into an Iran proxy(ironically Sharon was speaking from experience as his invasion of Lebanon in 1982 turned Lebanon into an Iranian proxy) which it did. Also it's absurd to say 911 is the result of Israel. Al Qaeda is result of Saudi royal family's Wahhabist ideology(funding the spread of their idelology at madrassas in places like Pakistan during the cold war) combined with Soviet war against Afghanistan. This led Osama Bin Laden and his supporters in forming Al Qaeda after war to continue their Jihad. They made a declaration of war in 1998 which cited several reasons for declaring war against America one of them Israel other reasons was Chechnya, kashmir, and Western backed Arab regiemes with Al Qaeda referring to them as the near enemy.
http://forward.com/opinion/9839/sharon-warned-bush/
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3444393,00.html

 

"Occupation occurs during war and it has been this way since history began, even when Palestinians declare war on Israel. When Palestinians rescind their declaration of war and take the violent destruction of Israel from their official position which was their policy long prior to there ever being an occupation and move towards a peace treaty I would imagine that Israel would be more than happy to talk about ending their occupation as other militarys have done once hostilities are over."
The PA since the end of second intifada under Abbas has tried to solve the problem through non violent means with Abbas mainlining security coordination with Israel for years, and trying several rounds of negotiations with Israel with months away from achieving a deal in 2008 during talks with Olmert but ran out of time to solve differences like Har Homa, and Ariel. Bibi has refused to go back to point of 2008 talks and last years talks between Bibi and Abbas ended in failure with an American official some believed to be Martin Indyk blaming fail of talks on issue of settlements with excerpt from official below
"
And there were other things. Israel presented its security needs in the West Bank: it demanded complete control over the territories. This told the Palestinians that nothing was going to change on the security front. Israel was not willing to agree to time frames - its control of the West Bank would continue forever.
He agreed to a demilitarized state; he agreed to the border outline so 80 percent of settlers would continue living in Israeli territory; he agreed for Israel to keep security sensitive areas (mostly in the Jordan Valley - NB) for five years, and then the United States would take over. He accepted the fact that in the Israeli perception, the Palestinians would never be trustworthy.
"He also agreed that the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and agreed that the return of Palestinians to Israel would depend on Israeli willingness. 'Israel won't be flooded with refugees,' he promised.
"He told us: 'Tell me if there's another Arab leader that would have agreed to what I agreed to. I won't make any more concessions until Israel agrees to the three following terms:
Outlining the borders would be the first topic under discussion. It would be agreed upon within three months.
A timeframe would be set for the evacuation of Israelis from sovereign Palestinian territories (Israel had agreed to complete the evacuation of Sinai within three years).
Israel will agree to have East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.
"
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4515821,00.html
http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-envoy-to-resign-after-blaming-settlements-for-talks-failure/


It's also impossible to not have tensions as long as occupation continues due to actions with it like house demolition, attacks by settlers etc. caused by it.

 

Palestinians declared war on Israel and had and still have the official policy of destroying Israel through violence and that was long prior to there every being an occupation. Until they rescind that declaration there is no sense in even thinking about removing occupation.

Picture trying to make peace with Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany when they still had the official policy of taking over Europe or the Pacific but demanded the allies and the US leave their nation. That's what Israel is dealing with.

 

once again. The left sees what Isis is doing, ignores it then finds a reason to attack Israel. Clealry the left doesn't give a damn about what happens to the people of the middle east ONLY, it seems , uses Israel to attack a US ally.

 

When did Palestine declare war on Israel?
Was it before or after Likud announced there would be no Arab state west of the Jordan river?
Europeans Jews were planning their colonization of Palestine a century ago with the specific goal of transforming a territory with a 10:1 ratio of Arab to Jew into a majority Jewish state. Can you say "ethnic cleansing?
The US failed to obtain a specific UNSC authorization for its invasion/occupation of Iraq; hence, that invasion is another in a long line of US wars of aggression, which, of course, constitute the supreme international crime since they contain within themselves the accumulated evil of the whole, i.e., IS and Israel.
Finally, al-Qaeda would not even exist today if the CIA hadn't created it forty years ago as part of a long term strategy to redraw the borders of oil producing states like Iraq. Just as the British used European migrants to create its "little loyal Jewish Ulster" in Arab Palestine to facilitate its looting of India.

 

"The man, Lawrence Wilkerson, was a member of the US State Department's policy planning staff and later chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell.

"In an interview with the news agency, he said that 'the Israelis were telling us Iraq is not the enemy - Iran is the enemy.'

"According to Wilkerson, different sources in Israel explained to senior US officials that 'if you are going to destabilize the balance of power, do it against the main enemy.'

"Wilkerson noted that the main point of their communications was not that the US should immediately attack Iran, but that 'it should not be distracted by Iraq and Saddam Hussein' from a focus on the threat from Iran.

"The message was conveyed by a large number of senior Israeli officials to their American counterparts, including political figures and intelligence sources."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3444393,00.html

Colonel Wilkerson's is a rare voice of sanity coming from Washington regarding the US and its predatory competition with its "strategic liability" in the eastern Mediterranean:
"Speaking to MintPress News over the phone from his home in Virginia, Wilkerson added that the damage Netanyahu has done as prime minister has been 'unprecedented,' and that Netanyahu and his predecessors, including Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, destroyed their own movement.

“'Fifty-one percent of the [Israeli] land belongs to the security complex, either outright or leased. Sixty families in Israel own about 75 percent of the wealth, which is unbelievable,' he explained.

“'They’re the most predatory capitalist state in the eastern Mediterranean, and that’s saying something because we [the U.S.], China, and Russia have exemplified predatory capitalism in the last 20 years, but Israel outstrips us all.'

"Wilkerson also asserts that Israel is a strategic liability for the U.S. government. Israel, he says, is helping Russia, one of America’s principal adversaries. He referenced an internal audit carried out by the Russian military in 2013 and 2014. Through that audit the Russians realized that their unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) were a major weakness on the battlefield. Israel responded by selling Russia state-of-the-art UAVs. 'And of course, they sell weapons to the Chinese too!' quipped Wilkerson."
http://www.mintpressnews.com/were-screwed-colin-powells-chief-of-staff-on-the-failings-of-us-foreign-policy/203366/

 

Bibi's Clean Break Strategy has consequences........

 

Isn't KSA the most 'western backed Arab regime'? Especially by the USA.

 

Gosh .. don't you remember before Bush attacked Iraq how Ariel Sharon and Chalabi were crowing to the Israeli press that they would be getting an oil pipeline from Kirkuk to Haifa?

Do you remember Bibi claiming that if Obama didn't attack Iran he would.. That was right after Obama took office.

Do you remember that AIPAC and JINSA promoted the Iraq war NON STOP?

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty much. Saudi Arabia has been a US ally since the late 1930s and they don't get any welfare.

 

May 15 1948, well before. The Palestinians were members of the Arab League who did so as represented by the Arab Higher Committee..

The delegitimization of Israel is one of the pillars of antisemitism according to the US Department of State and is a non starter. As for alluding to ethnic cleansing (yes, not only can I say it but can type it also) Brigitte Gabriel, testifying in front of the UN Conference on Anti-semitism stated:

" If Israel has been committing 'genocide' against the Palestinians, then why has the population of Palestinians increased more than 600% since 1948? Israel must be the most incompetent mass murders in the history of the world."

Furthermore, real ethnic cleansing is what the Palestinians had planned for Israel when they collectively intended to destroy the entire nation in successive wars starting in 1948 and have to this day it's destruction by violence as the core of their official policy towards her.

The US already had authorization to use force in order to uphold the series of Chapter Seven Resolutions against Iraq as I explained in 678, 687 and 1441 - 687 being the outline of the ceasefire conditions Iraq was to adhere to.

If you have solid proof of this then we can consider it factual however, as none has ever been provided, for the moment, it is pure Tinfoilism and unbecoming on a serious discussion medium such as this.

 

"Palestinians declared war on Israel and had and still have the official policy of destroying Israel through violence and that was long prior to there every being an occupation. Until they rescind that declaration there is no sense in even thinking about removing occupation."
The Palestinian under Mahoud Abbas has rejected violence(PLO formely agreed to not use violence in 1993 but with Arafat he never completely gave it up), this is even according to current Shin Bet head Yoram Cohen who is in the best position to know if Abbas wants violence and has maintained security coordination with Israel. He also has negotiated with Israel on a Palestinian state and was months away from a deal with Olmert. The NGO Palestinian Media Watch also in district Tel Aviv court was unable to prove there is a campaign of incitement in the PA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/magazine/13Israel-t.html?_r=0
http://972mag.com/judge-dismisses-credibility-of-palestinian-media-watch-testimony/78900/
http://www.jta.org/2013/10/09/news-...n-incitement-misinterpreted-some-analysts-say
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-C...as-not-responsible-for-inciting-terror-382145

"Picture trying to make peace with Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany when they still had the official policy of taking over Europe or the Pacific but demanded the allies and the US leave their nation. That's what Israel is dealing with."
For the most part baseless comparison especially in West Bank and PA, as the Palestinians don't have aspirations to conquer the world like the Japanese or Nazis. The PA as mentioned above doesn't have a policy of destroying Israel. The comparison makes more sense with Hamas due to officially calling for Israel's destruction and its charter's anti antisemitism with Protocol of Elder of Zion slander that Jews were behind French, Communist revolutions and WW1 along with citing Hadith which says it will not be day of judgement until Muslims fight Jews with Jews hiding behind stones and trees and the stone and trees saying Muslims the Jews are behind the tree and stones and calling for Muslims to kill them. However, comparison again is not complete as Hamas doesn't want to conquer the world, it doesn't have capacity to destroy Israel since it's a non state actor and due to reality of running a de facto state in Gaza since ceasefire ending operation pillar of defense in Novemeber 2012 they have stopped firing rockets at Israel(exception was during July-August 2014 after crackdown on Hamas following cell in Hebron not acting on orders from central leadership kidnapping and killing three teenage settlers) with few rockets launched since then by ISIS aligned groups opposed to Hamas. Hamas also has said that should PA negotiate with deal for state with Israel and it's accepted by people in referendum it will support the accord.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-would-accept-peace-with-israel-west-bank-leader-says/

 

How does that contradict what I said?It doesn't refute my point that you can't blame Israel for Iraq war when in private they warned against it.
"the Israelis were telling us Iraq is not the enemy - Iran is the enemy"
Sharon and the other officials correctly predicted that invading Iraq would turn it into Iran proxy. Sharon specifically in private warned that invasion would fail without an exit plan and trying to impose democracy(Sharon basically tried that in Lebanon instead of democracy forcing a pro Israel government that would sign peace agreement with Israel after expelling PLO and the plan massively backfired with trading PLO for Hezbollah) on Iraq since historically tribal people with opposing groups due to Iraq being drawn up by the British after WW1. Netanyahu taking an opposite position of his government and showing his keen lack of judgement did testify as private citizen in the House of Representatives in 2002 for the Iraq war.
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/diplom...re-and-contrast-netanyahu-s-speeches-1.468213

I do agree with assessment by Wilkson that Bibi has done more damage than Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert as prime minister. Ariel Sharon's career has done more damage than either Olmert or Sharon as he was father of settlements, he was one that invaded Lebanon using deceit too, and he as one also during 1950's that led reprisal raids like Qibya and Bureij where civilians were massacred(it's why as a person he is the worst Israeli even worst than Shamir, Bibi, Begin who while did order terroist attacks as head of Irgun didn't led troops committing massacres, it's also makes it difficult to believe Sharon was sincere when rhetorically he went against occupation when he told his Likud party you may not like the word occupation and there is no other word for it and it's a terrible thing for Israelis and Palestinians, I suppose it's possible for a person to change that much but difficult to believe)

 

Hasbara contributing to a serious discussion is about as likely...

"Benjamin B. Ferencz was one of the chief prosecutors for the United States at the military trials of German officials following World War II, and a former law professor. In an interview given on August 25, 2006, Ferencz stated that not only Saddam Hussein should be tried, but also George W. Bush because the Iraq War had been begun by the U.S. without permission by the UN Security Council.[57]

"Benjamin B. Ferencz wrote the foreword for Michael Haas's book, George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes.[58] Ferencz elaborated as follows:I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution. [A]n unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances that are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law.[59]

"The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva.[60][61]

"A 'war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force'. We note with 'deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression'.[61][61][62]"

...as a Smirking Chimp paying attention to international law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#War_of_aggression

 

You don't seem to know anything about Wahabbis.

Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with creating ISIS or the Arab Spring..

Clean Break Strategy (from Bibi Netanyahu) called for the overthrow of Saddam and the destabilizion and of Syria.. Now the Israelis want to blame KSA.. Typical.

As for the civil war in Lebanon... The Israelis orchestrated that according to Sharrett and Moshe Dayan.. They armed the Christians in hopes that they could install a mid-level Christian military officer who would be friendly to Israel..

Basically.. they wanted the Litani River.

 

He didn't mention ISIS he mention AQ which certainly was started by Saudis

 

So let me ask this, if the it is the worst humanitarian crisis in the Middle East why aren't the Nations in the Region dealing with the issue, come on there are around 20,000 ISIS fighters the Army of Iraq is many times larger not to mention the rest of the Nations. The left is whining about Israel, seems like you missed Coulters rant on Israel I do not believe she is a lefty. Really you know Libs do not care about human rights, wow, a far right-winger attempting to speak for liberals, now there is an Opinion we can trust to be truth........

 

It is difficult to believe much of what any politician says. Israeli politicians are doubly handicapped by their knee-jerk defense of a colonization effort that's been ongoing for a century. The US would be better off backing BDS and cutting its losses with the Jewish state.
" Wilkerson told MintPress, everything happening with regards to the Middle East is strictly tactical and absent of strategy. He likened the way the U.S. deals with the region to somebody opening their email inbox in the morning and having their day controlled by replying to various requests and demands, rather than having a plan for productivity and executing that plan.

"The most blatant sign that the U.S. does not have a coherent strategy in the Middle East, and is operating strictly through reactionary tactics, according to Wilkerson, is its support for Israel.

"A sensible Middle East strategy, he explained, would include, first and foremost, a plan to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

"Currently, Wilkerson laments, the U.S. is 'tactically trying to build stability in a country that’s not even a country [Iraq].' At the same time, it is ignoring the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. He says that if the U.S. were to focus on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and make it better in any way or even resolve it, that would aid the U.S. strategically in every other problem facing the region, including instability in Iraq.

“'As long as you leave that long-term festering problem alone, or, worse, you let somebody like Bibi Netanyahu control it, you’ve got no strategy. Your strategy at best is to live through the day, and tomorrow, and the next day to get your inbox clear,' he said."

http://www.mintpressnews.com/were-screwed-colin-powells-chief-of-staff-on-the-failings-of-us-foreign-policy/203366/

 

The Saudis didn't start AQ... The CIA was running around Yemen recruiting fights to go against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

KSA didn't want Communists in Afghanistan, but they didn't get involved until OBL went to Afghanistan..

Then the SAG was the conduit for money from the US government to fund the fighters.

- - - Updated - - -

The Saudis didn't start AQ... The CIA was running around Yemen recruiting fights to go against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

KSA didn't want Communists in Afghanistan, but they didn't get involved until OBL went to Afghanistan..

Then the SAG was the conduit for money from the US government to fund the fighters.

- - - Updated - - -

Afghanistan was all about ENRON's Dabhol project when the Taliban wouldn't allow a pipeline across Afghanistan.

 

He might want to amend his official charter if he truly feels that way as it states that the destruction of Israel through violence is the only way to a nation and, that nation is the entire British Mandate area which would include Jordan, Israel and Palestine.

"Article 9:

Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it .

Article 10:

Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war.

Article 19:

The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal

Article 20:

The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void."

The Charter was suposed to be amended but never was. The UN reported as of 2011 that it still had yet to be.

"Despite repeated assurances to amend it, the Palestinian National Charter remains unchanged – calling for Israel’s elimination by any military means **

Fatah’s Sixth General Conference (2009) leaves its PLO Charter unchanged since 1968 "

"Article 2:

Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit. "

That's a pretty big area. View attachment 38116

I quoted article 9 and 10 which state otherwise.

Hamas is not the government of Palestine which is why I didn't mention them. Yes, when their charter was relevant to this type of discussion I did mention them but now it is not relevant.

 

Everybody has an opinion. Bush, Congress (who gave him the power to invade also did) as did many nations with their own legal experts. I take it he is not part of the UNSC or UNGA who can rule this illegal?

The authorization to use force in 678 and all subsequent resolutions pertaining to this matter is a clear mandate.

More opinions but no ruling from a qualified body.

Summary

"UN resolution 678 UN resolution 1441

Monday 17 March 2003 19.02 GMT
Last modified on Wednesday 27 April 2005 19.02 BST


Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security:

1. In Resolution 678, the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.

2. In Resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under Resolution 678.

3. A material breach of Resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under Resolution 678.

4. In Resolution 1441, the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of Resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.

5. The Security Council in Resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.

6. The Security Council also decided in Resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation of Resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.

7. It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of Resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.

8. Thus, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.

9. Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. Thus, all that Resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force."

 

Right now there is a coalition that includes United States and other Western countries like Canada and Australia, Arab countries in the region(Saudi Arabia Morocco,UAE, Jordan, Qatar, and Bahrain) and recently Turkey since July allowing its Incirlik airbase to be used is bombing ISIS. Since this campaign was launched in September 2014 7,000 air strikes have been launched against ISIS destroying 10,600 targets and since June have killed 1,000 fighters a month. This has caused ISIS to be unable to operate in 25% of populated areas it once held in Iraq. In Syria while there have been setbacks, Syrian Kurds which since last October its commanders have been able to call in air strikes from United States are on the verge of capturing the last border crossing point between Syria and Turkey held by ISIS at Jarabulus(their only other border crossing point between Turkey and Syria was captured by the Kurds last June). Again it's fair to say we should do more against ISIS in particularly a no fly zone in Syria. However that is not the same as saying the left or the West is doing nothing and standing by while ISIS attacks. Aside from Lindsay Graham and John McCain in 2013 I don't think the Republicans even though they have majority in both houses of Congress has not tried to pressure Obama into a no fly zone.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ossing-with-turkey-held-by-isis-10511666.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/...d-7000-bombs-later-the-campaign-against-isis/

Again ISIS's human right abuses doesn't mean lesser human right abuses and violations of international law should be supported.