If Saudi Arabia and Israel went to war...

Post Reply New Topic

This site, and many others label the Israeli boarding as illegal http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news- ... ttack.html

You are wrong.

Site does not make right topic

The boarding was within Israel's rights. Once the Palestinians get their own state, then boarding will not be legal.

Declare they both got the turrurists. Problem solved.

Sponsored indirectly by Saudi money considering the source of Bin Laden's money is mostly through the Saud royal family not to mention the type of schools that are allowed by the Sauds encourage a very fundamentalist approach to Islam which enables such terrorists to foment, particularly in the more impoverished areas.

The conditions within the country and the company the royal family kept allowed for such a perfect storm to occur. Therefore, the regime in Saudi Arabia is responsible for being a terrorist state.

The Palestinians HAD their own country.

Then in 1948 the United Nations saw fit to give half their country to European Jews who drove the legal land owners off their land.

Since then they have stolen more and more land with their "settlements".

Now the Palestinians have been driven into an ever shrinking Gaza where they can be starved and bombed. Where they can die like dogs without medical treatment. Where their fishermen cannot fish off their own shore.

Deny this if you dare, and don't give me some crap about "Israel's right to defend itself". Don't the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves too?

The boarding was in international waters. That is illegal and defined as piracy. That is not in question.

The boarding occurred in international waters, where Israel does not have legal jurisdiction. If it were any other country than Israel (or the US) this would not be debated at all. On top of that, the boarding was in an attempt to enforce a blockade that is itself (at best) of dubious legality.

Certainly, but nobody has legal jurisdiction there. As you said, its only the flags in question that make it a debate.

I suppose by default the UN would have authority to settle disputes in international waters, but it is clear that it is illegal to board another country's ship in international waters. That would almost universally be interpreted as an act of aggression. If it had happened the other way around (if Turkey had boarded an Israeli ship in international waters) it might have resulted in war.

Fence, Offence and Defence topic

Palestinians defend themselves, and they often offend as well, violently. If they did as Ghandi proposed, I would have more sympathy. But they and other Islamists are into Hamaside, and so yes, I believe Israel has the right to defend itself from such crap--and with the Fence.

Check out North Korea right now if you want to find an aggressor of note. And they have nukes, too.

You are correct. I capitulate.

If you don't think Saudi Arabia supports terrorism, you're new to this world, bucko. Wombat: Mavi Marmara is Comoros-flagged and Turkish-owned...and a threat is a threat is a threat: not all soldiers wear uniforms.

As for Saudi Arabia possibly allowing Israeli overflights to bomb Iran...for a chance to screw the Iranians, the Saudis won't object--they're more afraid of Iran than they are of Israel because the Sunni-Shia conflict by far pre-dates the Arab-Israeli conflict.

If pushed sufficiently the Israelis would nuke the Qaba. Nor more Haj.

ruveyn

Nope. Turkey is a NATO member, remember?

Wouldn't take much pushing.

Never. Once the Romans rolled in, the area currently claimed by Israel and the Palestinians was under foreign control until 1948.

Furthermore, a people known as "Palestinians" has never existed until the 20th century. The Philistines certainly occupied territory along the Mediterranean coast, but were conquered by the Egyptians, and later the Babylonians, after which they disappeared as a distinct people, other than to give their name to the later Roman province.

It is from the Hashemites that the people who call themselves Palestinians are drawn, and they have always had a homeland. It's called Jordan.



The roots of the Israeli state are older than the 1948 decision. The Balfour Declarations made clear British intent over the Ottoman territory that they acquired after World War I (and yet the Arabs requested a British Mandate for Palestine, nonetheless...)



On this point we are in agreement, in substance if not in tone. If one recognizes the inevitability of a Palestinian State, then the West Bank will have to form a significant component of that state. The introduction of Israeli infrastructure appears to be a retrograde step, unless the Israeli intention is to create a compensation claim for infrastructure rendered to the Palestinian Authority.



Gaza is not the only territory that the Palestinian Authority was to have administered. To the extent that Palestinians have demonstrated a lack of capacity to exercise jurisdiction over their own populations, Israel has been obliged to fill a void that should properly have been filled by the Palestinian Authority. The infighting between Hamas and Fatah is just as fatal to Palestinian aspirations as Zionism. No one in the region, not Israel, not Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon or Syria, wants a Hamas administered State. Iran is the only proponent of a Hamas led sovereignty.

The road to peaceful resumption of territorial talks lies with Fatah. The sooner that the Palestinian people come to that realization, the sooner that some real progress can be made.



I don't see that any right to defence is relevant here. Israel is an occupying force, but the aggrieved belligerents are Jordan and Egypt, and I don't see either of them rushing to see the creation of a Palestinian state. Perhaps if Western aid to Palestine were to take the form of democratic development, rather than provocative blockade running, we might see some movement.