Israeli Saar 6 class corvettes attacked the Gaza Strip. Israel began using the latest Sa'ar 6 class corvettes to fire at Hamas positions on the coast of the Gaza Strip. For shelling, corvettes use mainly 76 mm Oto Melara naval artillery guns, made in Italy. Saar 6 class corvettes have fairly powerful anti-aircraft and anti-missile weapons for a ship of this size. The ships are based on the German K130 Braunschweig class corvettes. There are currently 3 ships of this project in service. The Saar 6 class corvette costs about $550 million.
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and other Related Conflicts in the Middle East (read the rules in the first post)
- Thread starter phrozenflame
- Start date
You know what is the best for sieging Gaza? Iowa class battleship. No regard for accuracy, just need to dump large amount of explosives in the area. It is like a stratgic bomber that drops bomb forever. Each HE shell weight 860kg which is comparable to 1000kg bombs dropped by strategic bombers.
No, not really. Hezbollah and Israel are constantly exchanging fire. Both sides are displaying restraint so far.
Gaddafi was in on it too, I tell ya.
Yes i think they wanted to blame and accuse russia of sending weapons to hamas since the article is Ukrainian
Sorry but wtf are you talking about?
No they didn't fight against Hammas in the Yarmuk camp. There were reports that some militants of the Palestinian islamic Jihad movement fought alongside Syria & Hezbollah against the terrorists/rebels and that was it.
I don't know. We Europeans don't talk with White Europeans because they're always idiots, and sometimes also angry idiots.
I suppose they don't sleep well at all hence all that anger and inability to think logically. Good sleep is very important for health as well as mental health.
And while we're at it: is every Singaporean culturally a racist like e.g. Americans or is it just you? I'm asking because racism is a fringe position in Europe largely incompatible with European cultural system but American perceptions are normalised online which leads to a lot of confusion.
UN is a construct of international law not a sovereign entity.
- Sovereign authority is binding to all entities within its jurisdiction.
- International law is only binding between parties.
The states who recognised Palestine can at any time withdraw their recognition but the UN can't do it without another GA resolution, even if all of the member states withdrew support. There is no "de facto" in law, only "de jure"
Recognition doesn't mean respecting a sovereign authority only acknowledging it which allows international law to take effect. If you don't recognise an entity then you can't apply legal conventions to any proceedings between you and it.
When two states are at war they literally must recognise each other first for a state of war to be even possible with all its legal consequences which are often more important than the war itself. For example you can't legally sign a treaty ceding a territory if you are not a recognised party.
Palestine is not recognised because unlike Israel it doesn't specify what is to be recognised.
For example Israel declares 1949 ceasfire line to be borders of Israel but Palestine does not declare these lines to be borders of Palestine. You can recognise the state of Israel as a state with borders of 1949 and capital in Tel Aviv. You can't do the same with Palestine.
In 1988 countries of the Soviet bloc made a proclamation recognising PLO as the legitimate authority of state of Palestine but they did not recognise any other attributes of the Palestinian state like the borders, its legal identity etc. It was an empty gesture for political grandstanding during the early phase of the Oslo accords negotiations.
Let's go back in history:
In 1948 "Palestinians" didn't exist. They were Arabs from British Mandate of Palestine, formerly a province of Ottoman Empire, who found themselves in or out of Israel after its unilateral proclamation of independence.
Nationalism is neither Arab nor Islamic tradition. The first nationalists in the Islamic world were Ataturk and Nasser. Palestinians had no concept of a nation or a nation-state. It was forced on them by the UN and Israel
During the first Arab-Israeli war the neighbouring states invaded Israel to eliminate a rival entity and take control of the land and not to liberate Palestinians or Palestine. The Arabs specifically left the territory hoping for victor in the war and were left without their property when Israel held on to the territory. The concept of "state of Israel" doesn't register with many of the people, especially those who view the solution in a single state, - per the cohabitation of Jews and Arabs under the Mandate - hence phrases like "Zionist entity". Many Arabs didn't agree that there should be two states at all, but being a majority they didn't see it as a threat like the Jews did.
After the ceasefire in 1949 Egypt took over Gaza and Jordan took over West Bank. From 1949 to 1967 these areas weren't "Palestinian" but Egyptian and Jordanian. Only after Israel forced Egypt and Jordan to renounce claims to those territories the issue of a Palestinian state became valid and that happened:
- with Egypt - Camp David accords in 1978
- with Jordan - Washington peace treaty in 1994
It is precisely the ongoing struggle against Israeli occupation and colonisation from 1967 to 1993 - during Oslo I - when the notion of "Palestine" emerges as a recognisable issue for the Palestinians. It is then that the notion of "Palestinian" begins to indicate a nationality rather than place of origin. Since Oslo it is the defining trait but increasingly jihadism plays a role that wasn't there before. Just as the Palestinian casuse was used by Egypt it is now used by Gulf states.
When the Israelis are saying that "there was no Palestinian nation" they're not lying.
- For the Israelis the conflict was between sovereign Jewish state of Israel and sovereign Arab states of Egypt, Jordan and Syria and not with the nascent Palestinian state.
- For Palestinians it was between Arabs and the Jews who took over land that Arabs lived on to create their Jewish state.
- recognition of borders between state of Israel and state of Palestine - either 1947 partition or 1949 ceasefire.
- right to return for refugees of 1948 - Arabs returning to Israel with full rights as Israeli citizens
Consequently if the two parties of international law can't come to an agreement on mutual recognition of territory there isn't a state of Palestine to be recognised. Israel and Palestine must recognise each other, otherwise it's a territorial conflict and no country wants to recognise a contradiction.
Other than that there isn't a single European country that I'm aware of that doesn't formally support the creation of a Palestinian state. The problem is with Israel, and that ultimately rests with Israeli and Jewish influence in the US and American party politics. It has nothing to do with Europe.
What you want us to do is to agree with the position of the anti-Israeli idiots who scream contradictory slogans in the streets or online to make themselves feel self-important and self-righteous or for social media clout. They can do it because there is no real consequence to their actions. But if you do that in international relations as a representative of a state there are grave consequences.
This is why international politics seems like such a cynical domain. It's not actual cynicism. It's just being overly cautious because the grave consequences in international relations are literal grave consequences, and often for a very large number of people.
Hopefully this clears some of the confusion.
Israeli Air Force twitter account gets caught recycling clips
________________________________________________
The Israeli shekel weakened to 4 per USD, the weakest level since 2015 and has lost nearly 3.9% since October 7th when Hamas attacked Israel and the country began its retaliatory strikes. Prime Minister Netanyahu pledged to continue the fight with neither limitations nor respite until the objectives are achieved and Israel is expected to launch a ground incursion into the Gaza Strip. Last week, the central bank adopted measures to support the currency, including selling up to $30 billion of foreign currency in the open market, the first intervention in about two years, and the first-ever sale of foreign exchange. Prior to the Hamas attack, the shekel was already under pressure as Prime Minister Netanyahu was set to follow through with measures that weaken the country’s judiciary system despite a series of protests earlier in the year.
________________________________________________
The Israeli shekel weakened to 4 per USD, the weakest level since 2015 and has lost nearly 3.9% since October 7th when Hamas attacked Israel and the country began its retaliatory strikes. Prime Minister Netanyahu pledged to continue the fight with neither limitations nor respite until the objectives are achieved and Israel is expected to launch a ground incursion into the Gaza Strip. Last week, the central bank adopted measures to support the currency, including selling up to $30 billion of foreign currency in the open market, the first intervention in about two years, and the first-ever sale of foreign exchange. Prior to the Hamas attack, the shekel was already under pressure as Prime Minister Netanyahu was set to follow through with measures that weaken the country’s judiciary system despite a series of protests earlier in the year.
Last edited:
Surprised by UAE, disappointed in Brazil ...
The UN Security Council on Monday night in New York failed to adopt a resolution proposed by Russia that would have called for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, which has been ravaged by almost 10 days of fighting between Israel and Hamas militants.
The Russian-led draft resolution received five votes in favour (China, Gabon, Mozambique, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates) and four against (France, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States), with six abstentions (Albania, Brazil, Ecuador, Ghana, Malta, and Switzerland).
For the Council to adopt a resolution, the proposal must receive at least nine votes in favour, with none of its five permanent members opposing or casting a veto.
The draft text had called for a humanitarian ceasefire, release of all hostages, aid access, and safe evacuation of civilians.
The UN Security Council on Monday night in New York failed to adopt a resolution proposed by Russia that would have called for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, which has been ravaged by almost 10 days of fighting between Israel and Hamas militants.
The Russian-led draft resolution received five votes in favour (China, Gabon, Mozambique, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates) and four against (France, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States), with six abstentions (Albania, Brazil, Ecuador, Ghana, Malta, and Switzerland).
For the Council to adopt a resolution, the proposal must receive at least nine votes in favour, with none of its five permanent members opposing or casting a veto.
The draft text had called for a humanitarian ceasefire, release of all hostages, aid access, and safe evacuation of civilians.